Technology For the Masses: Churches Going Hi-Tech

theodp writes "More and more, reports the Chicago Tribune, churches are embracing the use of tablets and smartphones during services. At Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side, the Rev. Otis Moss III preaches from his iPad. 'There was a time in the church when the Gutenberg Bible was introduced,' notes early adopter Moss. 'There was a severe concern among ministers who were afraid the printed page would be such a distraction if you put it in the hands of people in worship.' Tech-savvy churchgoers are also on board. 'In the service, when they say to pull out Bibles, I pull that phone out,' Ted Allen Miller said of using his Android smartphone at Willow Creek Community Church."

Comments

Not really shocking...

[Anonymous Coward]

Attitudes about tech like this vary widely by denomination, and with some groups this is no surprise at all.

Many Evangelical and Pentecostal groups have been using tons of tech and trying to make church look like Vegas for decades.

If these were small town Baptists on the other hand, I'd be shocked.

Re:Not really shocking...

[tripleevenfall]

I'm a member of a very conservative Baptist congregation, and ipads, smartphones with the YouVersion Bible app, as well as Kindles abound. It's been that way for years now.

Re:Not really shocking...

[Deep Esophagus]

I've been living in relatively small towns (pop. 50,000 and 20,000) for the past fifteen years, attending convservative evangelical churches. Two of them make extensive use of multimedia presentations, which I have to admit was a bit of an annoyance to me -- I stop seeing the worship as a sincere expression of faith from the heart but instead it starts looking as you said, iike a Vegas performance.

I have tried using my Kindle when we're told to pull up a specific chapter, but the interface is so tedious I'm just getting to the passage by the time the preacher finishes reading it. Much faster than to grab a dog-eared print copy and flip to the right section. My wife likes using her smartphone, though, and I've even seen smartphones among folks I wouldn't have expected. This particular congregation is largely older ranchers.

Re:Not really shocking...

[uigrad_2000]

One of the popular Bible apps on the IOS appstore is made by a friend of mine. He's Southern Baptist.

The first mobile Bible App I ever used was the "Pocket e-Sword" developed for PocketPC in 2000. I used it in a very conservative Baptist church back in about 2001, and no one thought it was strange. That was 11 year ago.

Re:Not really shocking...

[tripleevenfall]

I realize it's the usual /. religion bashing, but tablets of course lend themselves wonderfully to this application - needing something to perform a few simple functions like looking up scripture references and note taking - at a level even the elderly can handle and do this via mobile. They can also entertain otherwise noisy and unruly children.

I've seen far more objection in the corporate academic settings. At the company I used to work for, some would mandate that everyone close their laptop during a meeting, to keep people from doing email or otherwise redeeming wasted time in useless meetings. The same was true when I was finishing my master's degree in 2008 - some professors would tell everyone to turn their screens off while they lectured.

I have never seen anyone have a reaction other than "cool!" at church.

Re:Not really shocking...

[plover]

You mean "tech" as in printing and publishing? That's been a problem for years. And it makes me wonder if these things will be stymied by a shot from Big Theological Print Houses. They're obviously worried about the copyrights on the material they publish, and ensuring their revenue streams remain flowing.

Years ago, I was surprised to see advances in steganographic watermarking taking place in printed music. The spacing of notes and symbols, using dotted lines instead of thin solid lines for bars, all these were used to give the publishers a way to identify people or churches who bought only one hymnal and passed out photocopies of the day's music. I understood then that the King James translation has been adopted by many people as the canonical text simply because newer translations cost too much, kind of like some of the very first open source projects.

The printers are treating the Bible almost like a college textbook. Release a new edition every few years, and convince the churches to buy all new copies.

So I wonder if Big Theological Printers will try to convince people that these are really important advances. "Oh, those old translations were really poor and mistranslated a lot of important concepts, and these new community-supported translations are pretty much heretical. For God's Own True Words, you really should stick with our Official Blessed and Approved translation, Bible 2012, 34th edition. Available now, wherever fine bibles are sold. Look for the 'Deity Approved' holographic stickers!"

Re:Not really shocking...

[Ihmhi]

I have tried using my Kindle when we're told to pull up a specific chapter, but the interface is so tedious

God helps those who mod their own Kindles themselves. Or something like that.d=

Re:Not really shocking...

[tehcyder]

I realize it's the usual /. religion bashing,

What's wrong with bashing lies?

It's different, that's all

[Thyamine]

Just like anything else, it's different so some people will find it weird or wrong in the beginning. Or assume you are looking at porn in service or some equally ridiculous claim. And the only reason this is even a story is because it involves churches which are often steeped in tradition and not generally the first to use tech, although that's really a church by church decision.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? Because the only science most of them seem even interested in denying is origins (both cosmological and biological), and some bits of mostly reproduction-related biology -- none of which has a bloody thing to do with smartphones and tablets. Yes, a few extreme whackos oppose relativity (without which, no GPS) as part of their young-earth trip, but these are AFAICT a small minority among the young-earthers -- and that's the only electronics-relevant science I've ever heard of any of them denying.

Re:It's different, that's all

[IorDMUX]

although that's really a church by church decision.

I'd say region by region, rather than it being driven by denomination. I was going to a church in Los Altos (not far from Google Headquarters) in 2008, and smartphones were the medium of choice for following along in the scriptures. First iPhones and later the G1 when it debuted...

Fast forward two years, and I moved to Fremont, about 15 miles counterclockwise around the bay. In church there, one day, I pulled out my HTC phone and and was met with questioning stares. I raised a question about a scripture and was asked "Wait, you can read the Bible on that thing?"

Different regions, different people, same church, different attitudes toward a great many things -- technology included.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, for me, the interesting part is that they're using 21st century technology to focus all your attention on a set of documents written between 1200 BCE and 100 CE, even to the point of denying the science that makes the 21st century technology possible.

I'm not sure what "denying the science" [of the Big Bang and Evolution] has to do with the technology involved with moving electrons around. All of the technology required for making a smartphone can be derived without relying on the theories abouth the origins of the universe and life on our planet.

Re:It's different, that's all

[operagost]

Since you asked, the evidence that an iPad works is directly observable, while evolution requires-- if you'll excuse the layman's term-- "faith" in experts, as the cause and effect are not directly observable. Thanks for not taking it to an absurd level like some, who claim that creationist don't believe in gravity and the like.

Re:It's different, that's all

[vlm]

Creationists should eat their own dog food and live like in the Middle Ages.

umm, you are aware of their various social and educational policies, right?

The interesting part is they always want everyone ELSE to live according to their policies, but they themselves should be free to (fill in the blank with decades of corrupt televangelists, corrupt priests, etc)

Re:It's different, that's all

[daem0n1x]

Since you asked, the evidence that an iPad works is directly observable, while evolution requires-- if you'll excuse the layman's term-- "faith" in experts, as the cause and effect are not directly observable.

So, what separates both is the amount of... thinking? Thank you for confirming that creationists are brain dead retards.

Re:It's different, that's all

[cwgmpls]

1) No all people who read and study the Bible are deniers of science.

2) Using 21st century technology (iPad) to study the Bible is just as strange and unusual as using 15th century technology (printed books) to study a set of documents written between 1200 BCE and 100 CE.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't you?

First, you're neglecting that man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal. Holding an inherent contradiction is quite easy for the human brain unless pushed (by yourself or circumstances) to actively consider the point of conflict -- as long as you use one rule in one circumstance, and a different rule in others, never both at the same time, you can do just fine.

Second, it's not all that hard to draw lines (again, rationalizations) suggesting that this is "Real Science" and that is "Atheist Dogma". Evolution is particularly easy to dismiss in this regard, as it's easy to write off observational science as distinct from experimental science, and, to date, we don't have the ability to do any experiments testing or confirming specific aspects of evolution with obvious significance to non-biologists. Synthetic life would go a long way; making everyone a molecular biologist so they can understand the experiments we can run and their relationship to evolution as a whole would go farther. Even so, a scientist with infinite resources to experiment still can never honestly claim to have proved evolution has happened -- at best, we can prove it's wholly possible and posit a complete, specific roadmap of how every species came to be, but when the creationist fires back "Well, evolution could have happened, but it didn't -- a (sky)wizard did it!", all you can say is "I found no need of that hypothesis."

Re:It's different, that's all

[Anonymous Coward]

And thanks for showing once again that geeks are ignorant scum blinded by their own spittle drenched hate.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Empiric]

There is disagreement among scientists across a broad range of questions. Since one of these groups is by definition not accepting "correct science", should they be required to deny all scientific principles, too?

Few "creationists", though, deny the scientific statement "evolution occurs" as a causal statement affecting biology. They tend to deny the untestable, unscientific hypothesis "only evolution occurs". If you're among those who deny correct science through accepting that hopeful non-sequitur equivocation of the term, maybe you should book that time machine trip yourself...

Re:It's different, that's all

[richpoore]

Not that this hasn't been said before, but there is a difference in the realms of science which refer to repeatable, observable happenings (e.g. electricity, magnetism and micro-evolution) and science which cannot be repeated or observed (e.g. macro-evolution or the big bang theory)

Re:It's different, that's all

[Defenestrar]

No, I think the point of the above poster was that one of the two can undergo in situ testing whereas the other can merely investigate current observable state and effect to theorize about initial cause. By a strict definition of science (the experimental testing of a hypothesis), you can accept the iPad on a scientific basis, but can not accept cosmology/evolution on a scientific basis until we are advanced enough to either create our own universes to observe, or may set up a megayear experiment with observational parameters for a static and some evolving ecologies.

What separates you and operagost is evidence of thinking. You know what that confirms don't you?

Re:It's different, that's all

[Cajun Hell]

They tend to deny the untestable, unscientific hypothesis "only evolution occurs".

If it were that simple, the whole thing would have blown over. No scientist has ever said "only evolution occurs"; they've all said that evolution is the only thing that has ever been observed occurring, and there's no evidence that would lead anyone to even suspect that anything else occurs.

And it's when crackpots say that their ignorance is the evidence (!) which leads them to suspect (or worse: know for sure) that the FSM designs life, that scientists hand those crackpots' asses to them.

Re:It's different, that's all

[SpeZek]

By a strict definition of science (the experimental testing of a hypothesis)

So, not by the actual definition of science, but by an artificially constructed one?

Re:It's different, that's all

[richpoore]

There are extremists in Islam, Christianity and Evolution. Eugenics is an example of the negative outworking of extreme evolutionary thought. This being said, even most Christians who want freedom and believe it is being threatened is merely the freedom of speech. While it is somewhat offensive, I don't want daem0n1x to be censored. He should be able to say that people who believe like I do should eat dog food, even if he's in public office or a high school teacher. I won't vote for him and would challenge him as my teacher, but in the same vein, Christians shouldn't be censored from speaking about our faith, no matter where, or who we are.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Empiric]

"Scientists" per se, tend to avoid that form of statement, yes. Dawkins et al, however, have made a very comfortable living stating exactly that. Any presentation of "religion versus science" in only possible insofar as one is using "evolution" in an untestable, hence unscientific sense.

In general, though, the statement that "there's no evidence that would lead anyone to even suspect that anything else occurs" is directly factually false. We -know- design occurs, if for no other reason than biology exists that we ourselves have designed. We are arguing about the possible scope of "when" design is a factor, not "if". That it -is- a factor when talking about "existence in general", is now established fact.

Re:It's different, that's all

[daem0n1x]

Few "creationists", though, deny the scientific statement "evolution occurs" as a causal statement affecting biology. They tend to deny the untestable, unscientific hypothesis "only evolution occurs".

Nice try. Creationists say evolution is wrong because it contradicts what's written in their Holy Book. Are you REALLY trying to equate that with controversy among scientist??? According to you, creationists do not defend that "evolution does not exist". They just defend that "not only evolution exists". Even if it was true, what is the other thing that "exists"? Do you have any scientific argument to present here or you feel happy just by trolling?

Good luck with your bullshit.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Kismet]

1200 BCE? Let's see... late bronze age religious documents... you must be talking about the vedic texts known from what we call "Hinduism." The religious texts of the Jews and Christians didn't begin to appear until much later.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Empiric]

Creationists say evolution is wrong because it contradicts what's written in their Holy Book.

Really? Have you actually ever heard one say this, or is this just the Straw Man that came most quickly to mind?

Are you REALLY trying to equate that with controversy among scientist???

There is controversy among scientists. When you deny this, reality will remain precisely the same, that there is controversy among scientists. Apart from those in the ID camp, there are notions of, say, "panspermia" as a causal factor, and great, systemic disagreement as to the particular paths evolution has taken.

Do you have any scientific argument to present here or you feel happy just by trolling?

Lots of them are available for a little googling. That tends to be a more intricate argument at the level of biology than I'm looking to start at this point, though. Behe, as usual, is a good place to start on the biological level. My point here is simply, and accurately, the exclusion of other causal factors when using the term "evolution" is untestable and hence unscientific, and the word cannot be used that way -scientifically-, only philosophically.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Defenestrar]

Nothing contrived here. No general lumping of other tools like mathematics, engineering, logic, various analytical techniques (e.g. PCR, peptide mapping, carbon dating, etc...), into the parent term of science either.

Science (see 3a) in the strictest sense requires adherence to the scientific method.

Re:It's different, that's all

[mcgrew]

It's also pretty old news. Preachers have been broadcasting sermons and hymns on TV for decades, on radio before that. What church doesn't list a phone number?

Is there still a church that lacks an internet presence? Even the tiny, poor church I attended (in the poorest neighborhood in town) over five years ago had the computerized large screen. The one I attend now is very large, rich, high-tech church, with two giant screens, professional stage lighting, electric musical instruments, all computerized. Flat screens all over the concourse.

You're right, churches (except perhaps the Amish) have embraced technology before I was born, and that was a LONG time ago.

Re:It's different, that's all

[VoidCrow]

It's easy enough to make and investigate a simple simulation of the way evolution works, without being an expert. This would confirm the huge mathematical advantage that the evolutionary process has over the much bruted operation of random chance. And the evidence of an iPad in operation says nothing about the way in which it operates. For all the mass of Creationists are aware, it may be that iPad-shaped stones are carried into the Temple of The Lord, blessed with the relevant incantations, and then sold on to the masses for money with which the good works of Jesus can be done.

Blessed is the Name of Our Lord, et cetera...

Re:It's different, that's all

[mcgrew]

even to the point of denying the science that makes the 21st century technology possible.

Where do you people come up with this bullshit? Do you have a link to any of these? I know of no religion that denies science. Hell, even the Pope recognises and acknowledges that evolution is real.

You discredit the ancients, does that include Plato and Aristotle? Why do young people think that today's humans are any smarter than people three thousand years ago? We're not smarter, we just know more. Fruit flies evolve quickly because they have tiny lifespans, people don't. Tortuises live hundreds of years and evolve even more slowly.

In geological timeframes, two thousand years is nothing.

Re:It's different, that's all

[vlm]

Eugenics is an example of the negative outworking of extreme evolutionary thought.

Would disagree, eugenic programs seem to be pretty strongly selected against by evolutionary pressures.

Inductive thought experiment: Assume a eugenics program is implemented where only the top 10% procreate for everyone as step x=zero. x=x+1 step is 90% of genes are not passed along to next generation. Conclusion, 90% are evolutionarily / genetically intensely motivated to wipe out the eugenics project so they get to reproduce... It would seem any program preventing reproduction by "more than a destabilizingly large group" makes the society inherently unstable toward collapse.

There is a similar line of reasoning if you assume a eugenics program requires the abolition of the "golden rule" then the society without the golden rule will become so uncivilized / unstable that they will fail... leading to the triumph of the non-eugenic competing societies. This is pretty closely tied to the "eugenics requires 1984-style civilization, which will fail, therefore the eugenic program will fail, therefore eugenics is an evolutionary fail"

You can also come up with a variety of purely scientific arguments where the more diverse the genetic pool of a society, the better the society will respond to evolutionary pressures, so the more likely that a diverse genetic pool culture will wipe out or take over a genetic monoculture. I suppose you could design a multi-ethnic eugenics program which actively tries to purify multiple simultaneous bloodlines rather than just selecting for one ideal, but that pretty much seems to be what most cultures end up doing anyway more or less all by themselves, without any (legal) enforcement.

Pretty much the only way to make a stable eugenic society seems to make it a meaningless totem... Sure we could envision theoretically sterilizing the bottom 1% of the population, but that doesn't really modify the society if we also let the bottom 5% live in prison and/or under freeway overpasses and/or die in wars anyway, so it would have little if any additional effect.

Re:It's different, that's all

[mcgrew]

No scientist has ever said "only evolution occurs"

True, but athiests do.

Re:It's different, that's all

[AmiMoJo]

I find it surprising that they would advocate use of a device that gives you access to a wide range of competing views and contradictory evidence. The whole point of church is to get people in a room and preach at them for a few hours with nothing to counter the dogma.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

In general, though, the statement that "there's no evidence that would lead anyone to even suspect that anything else occurs" is directly factually false. We -know- design occurs, if for no other reason than biology exists that we ourselves have designed. We are arguing about the possible scope of "when" design is a factor, not "if". That it -is- a factor when talking about "existence in general", is now established fact.

Please provide some of this evidence that "design occurs." Everything I have read about "design theory" boils down to various restatements of the argument from personal incredulity. I have yet to see any testable evidence, or even testable hypothesis, that design occurs.

Re:It's different, that's all

[mcgrew]

I want to add to what emperic said and as for a LINK, damn it. Prove your absurd accusations or STFU.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Anonymous Coward]

The evidence that evolution works is directly observable as well, that's how new breeds of dogs happen (this is the equivalent of turning on an iPad to prove electricity exists.) You just have to realize that we're talking about evolution over millions of years, not Pokemon style instant speciation. Also you may need access to some fast living organisms (like fruit flies) and a brief primer on what you're looking for when you do the experiment if you want to observe actual speciation rather than just basic non-speciating eugenics (this is the equivalent of building a simple circuit on breadboard.)

The claim that evolution was historically responsible for the current biodiversity of Earth is something that takes more "faith" as it's impossible short of time travel to observe what did happen directly, however there's at least as much evidence for that historical claim as there is supporting the claim that ancient Rome existed.

Re:It's different, that's all

[richpoore]

First, I didn't say it is good science, just that evolutionary thought can work out to eugenics. It was tried a few times and was unsuccessful. It is an evolutionary fail because natural selection tends to keep the norm. This didn't stop Hitler and some even in the United States to try and help evolution move more quickly.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Defenestrar]

Am I foolish for attempting to clarify another persons point on slashdot? (quite likely) Or was it for attempting to objectively looking at something from an alternate position?

You link appears to fail to address the point I mentioned regarding application of the scientific method in a controlled experiment however. There's plenty of observational data from within our own system (such as the newt story with regional differences in coevolved toxin/resistance to TTX), but I didn't see any controlled experiments (e.g. in region 1 we force random mating and in region 2 we allow preferential mating).

I'd also like to point out that I've also not stated what my position is, although you seem to have drawn conclusions about that anyway. Would you say that your verbal semantic fluency is on par with your apparent reading comprehension? Or is it only written discussions you have trouble with? You certainly aren't alone however. Many people in a debate (particularly this one) get so caught up shouting their own position that they fail to listen to what another side might be saying. The worst case is when both sides reach this point. I know I've fallen within this communication pitfall in the past (and will likely do so again - it's related to human nature after all).

Re:It's different, that's all

[lowen]

All definitions are, by definition, artificially constructed.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Anonymous Coward]

Panspermia doesn't have anything to do with the evolution/creationist debate.

Panspermia is the hypothesis that life on Earth developed elsewhere and was deposited on Earth by some means. In order for that to be true you still need to account for the diversity of modern life (evolution) and the existence of life in general (abiogenesis).

In short arguing about panspermia is the scientific equivalent of arguing whether sheep or cows were created first within the book of Genesis.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Logger]

If I only had a video camera every time I heard someone say, "Man didn't evolve from apes, God created man. It says so right here in the Bible!" ? However, I thought comments like this occurred so often, that no one would ever deny they are made.

If you've never heard something close to that said, you obviously have never encountered fundamentalist Christians.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

>Really? Have you actually ever heard one say this, or is this just the Straw Man that came most quickly to mind?

Yes, I have heard them say this repeatedly. It is the core of the creationist dispute with evolution. For example look here.

>There is controversy among scientists. When you deny this, reality will remain precisely the same, that there is controversy among scientists.

I see you're trotting out one of the vintage creationist canards. Intelligent design is not science, since it offers no testable hypotheses. Even the US Supreme Court has ruled that ID is religion, not science. Panspermia is an interesting hypothesis about the origin of life, but has nothing to do with evolution.

>Behe, as usual, is a good place to start on the biological level.

Trolling for sure. Quoting from the court decision in the Dover School case, where Behe testified for the plaintiffs,"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."

Thank you for playing.

Re:It's different, that's all

[SpeZek]

Yes but the scientific method does not strictly require experimentation, only falsification. Hypotheses can be tested through prediction and observation.

Re:It's different, that's all

[vlm]

That brings us back to "Eugenics is an example of the negative outworking of extreme evolutionary thought" and "extremists in Islam, Christianity and Evolution."

Hitler was a Christian so I donno where where all that fits in with the failed eugenics/extreme evolution thing.

We seem to agree that eugenics is not a very good evolutionary strategy...we seem to agree it has little if anything to do with "evolutionary extremists".

Re:It's different, that's all

[Empiric]

Okay...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/11/genetically-modified-glowing-cats

Fluorescent cats. Designed, no?

There are many other such examples. I suspect you'll have some sort of reply such as "yeah but that was recently". That would again give is a debates as to "when", not "if".

Re:It's different, that's all

[Empiric]

Yes, I have heard them say this repeatedly. It is the core of the creationist dispute with evolution. For example look here.

The statement isn't there, unless you meant "somewhere on this site is something like that". I was expecting an actual valid backing of your claim, actually. Typically, the effort would be to harmonize the understanding of scripture with science, rather than simply state "it cannot be", especially since the next step would be to consider various interpretations among theists themselves. I again submit you have never in your life heard this presented, and presented as sufficient consideration of the matter.

Intelligent design is not science, since it offers no testable hypotheses.

I understand you've heard this repeated a thousand times before, and will repeat it yourself a thousand times more, but throughout that time it will persistently remain false. A test for ID would be, "enumerate the mutations required for all biological structures, eliminate those which require transitions which would not be survivable, calculate the probability given the population over that time". We are not yet able to do this fully as a matter of technology, but we'll inevitably get there.

Even the US Supreme Court has ruled that ID is religion, not science.

Don't care in the least what lawyers, even if wearing black robes, declare about science. Neither does science.

Panspermia is an interesting hypothesis about the origin of life, but has nothing to do with evolution.

In one interpretation, but you are understating the scope. The notion of a designed or undesigned set of DNA being introduced at any point in history is in-scope of that notion.

Quoting from the court decision in the Dover School case, where Behe testified for the plaintiffs,"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."

And... so what? This is textbook Genetic Fallacy. The truth or falsehood of an idea has nothing to do with its origination.

Thank you for playing.

Thanks. Looking forward to winning again next time.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Empiric]

If I only had a video camera every time I heard someone say, "Man didn't evolve from apes, God created man. It says so right here in the Bible!"

If you had had one, I suspect you'd have a fully available videotape.

However, I thought comments like this occurred so often, that no one would ever deny they are made.

Well, I've been a theist for 30-ish years now, and I've never heard it said. If you have, is this where others are entitled to ask -you- for evidence?

Re:It's different, that's all

[richpoore]

From what I have read, Hitler's belief is far from settled. It appears he was raised Catholic but his belief is reported differently depending on who is asking. The holocaust, however, was supported by Hitler's belief in survival of the fittest. As the stronger race we must get rid of the inferior and lesser races. This is NOT a Christian belief. We agree it's not good science but I don't agree that it wasn't evolutionary extremists. I also don't agree Hitler was a Christian, as shown in His character. The historical testimony is far less than conclusive on the subject.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Anonymous Coward]

"But in the same vein, Christians shouldn't be censored from speaking about our faith, no matter where, or who we are."

Thanks for saying that.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is directly observable. Just choose a species whose generations are within a short time frame (fruit flies are a very popular choice for a lot of biologists because of this reason).

The only reason evolution doesn't seem to happen is because the time-scale for many organisms is very long, so it's hard to tell. Just like how plate tectonics shift large pieces of earth inches per year. It's hard to tell that it's working without: A) very precise instrumentation, or B) a long time scale to let the effects build up.

Evolution just lacks convenient large scale A), so B) is often employed instead.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Cruciform]

"Survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with being 'superior'. It refers to the current incarnation being most likely to reproduce, per reading of Darwin's writings.
You find a species of bird in a forest which mates and nests only in knotholes in trees. The largest, most aggressive birds get all the large knotholes and the females prefer those nests and mate with them. A lumber company comes into the area and cuts down all the old growth, leaving only smaller trees with smaller knotholes. The smaller males are now the only ones who can fit in the knotholes and thereby mate with the females. They are now the fittest.
So many people use that phrase having no clue what it means.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Ihmhi]

As an Atheist, no. Just no.

Hey, guess what? We're a group of people that have a lot in common. Just like "Christian" can mean Baptist, Coptic, Pentecoastal, Reformed, Unitarian, or literally dozens (hell, hundreds maybe!) of different sects, there's loads of different kinds of atheists. We're a bit hard to pin down because the only thing that unifies us is the lack of belief in God.

I don't say "only evolution occurs". I say "Evolution is the best idea we have as to how life got to this point. Maybe one day we'll have a better one, but it beats an unprovable 'a guy in the sky did it' scenario."

Re:It's different, that's all

[richpoore]

I understand that . . . my point is that Hitler believed to be helping the enevitable white superior race, and that he believed he was helping speed up evolution, not that he correctly understood evolutionary theory. His atrocities were done in the name of evolution. He did not, it seems, have a good grasp on evolution, or used it for his purposes just as people have used Christianity for their purposes.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Yes, I have heard them say this repeatedly. It is the core of the creationist dispute with evolution. For example look here. The statement isn't there, unless you meant "somewhere on this site is something like that". I was expecting an actual valid backing of your claim, actually. Typically, the effort would be to harmonize the understanding of scripture with science, rather than simply state "it cannot be", especially since the next step would be to consider various interpretations among theists themselves. I again submit you have never in your life heard this presented, and presented as sufficient consideration of the matter.

It's pretty much the entire basis for that site, but you obviously didn't look very hard. Try this. Members of the Creation Research Society swear that nothing they "discover" will contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis.

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

>I understand you've heard this repeated a thousand times before, and will repeat it yourself a thousand times more, but throughout that time it will persistently remain false. A test for ID would be, "enumerate the mutations required for all biological structures, eliminate those which require transitions which would not be survivable, calculate the probability given the population over that time". We are not yet able to do this fully as a matter of technology, but we'll inevitably get there.

False dichotomy. That would be a way to falsify evolution by means of natural selection, but it would in now way prove the reality of intelligent design.

>And... so what? This is textbook Genetic Fallacy. The truth or falsehood of an idea has nothing to do with its origination.

You're the one who cited Behe as an authority. I merely pointed out his obviously fallacious reasoning. You chose to use argument from authority. Don't whine when your choice of authority turns out not to be wearing any clothes.

Re:It's different, that's all

[ChatHuant]

I know of no religion that denies science. Hell, even the Pope recognises and acknowledges that evolution is real.

You can't be serious. While some religions do officialy acknowledge parts of science, there are many branches and offshoots that deny parts or all of it. What kind of alien being are you, if you never heard of this? Or this? Or this, or this? Or, heck, how can you not have heard of this?

Re:It's different, that's all

[kikito]

Evolution is observable. It is not instantaneous, but its results can be made evident in years. It can certainly be observed without relying on "experts".

Here are some observations:

= Genetics =

a) We know that genes exist. We have lots of indirect evidence about them - but if you don't have a powerful enough microscope, you still can tell that children usually "carry on" characteristics from their parents, from the color of their skin to the shape of their nose.

b) We also know that mutations exist. A couple of perfectly "normal" parents can get an "anomalous" offspring just by chance. Usually this ends up badly - genetic illnesses, etc. Often mutations have no consequence, since they happen in "garbage genes" (genes that we don't use in any way). But every once in a while a mutation is "beneficial" in some way - for example, a plant might just happen to be more resilient to certain bug than their parents, by chance.

= Natural selection =

c) We know that artificial selection exists. It's done routinely by farmers, who chose the cows that grow the most meat to procreate, or the fastest horses, if they are into racing. Or the gardeners who picks the prettiest roses, and so on.

d) We also know that natural selection exists. We know that the strongest lions have children, but the weaker ones don't. And this pattern repeats with all animals. The ones with the best chance of getting offspring, are the ones that (usually) do. We know nature does c), by choosing the best candidates available for breeding, just like a gardener.

= The age of Earth =

e) We know for a fact that geological processes happen terribly slowly for our scale of time, exceptions made for volcanoes and earthquakes. If you have ever built a sand castle in the beach, and it was destroyed by the sea, you have just witnessed erosion - at high speed. If the coast you were at happened to have cliffs, you probably saw how the water was doing the same thing to it - only a tad more slowly. If you went back to the same cliff after some years, and compared pictures from when you were a child, you can probably see that a big boulder here and there has moved maybe half a meter, and that's it.

f) We know that the Earth is *ancient*. Again, there is plenty of indirect evidence, but if you don't want to "trust the experts", just drive to a hilly region. You have probably seen the wavy patterns of the strata in the rock do when driving along a road carved through a mountain. Have you noticed how "wavy" they are? Rocks are rigid - if you apply pressure to them, they break. Taking into account e), How many years do you think it took to curve them like that?

= Conclusion =

Science never says "this is how the world works". It says "according to what we know until now, this is the most reasonable explanation". And so far, given b), d) and f), evolution is the most reasonable explanation.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Empiric]

It's pretty much the entire basis for that site, but you obviously didn't look very hard.

Okay, let's checkpoint this, as you goalpost-shift to lesser and lesser claims. You started off saying...

Creationists say evolution is wrong because it contradicts what's written in their Holy Book.

Implying universality--that all "creationists" say this. They don't. Then we went to...

Yes, I have heard them say this repeatedly.

Implying you have heard them say this personally, repeatedly--implying it is the dominant stance. It isn't.

Then you went to linking a site that doesn't say that, at least not on the page linked nor in your followup. It is clear that they have a related -stance-, but there is no issue with stating a position, and backing it with scientific analysis, for anyone--regardless of how a priori dismissive you may be of their arguments, or how cogent they ultimately may be, this does not approximate "The bible says not, nothing more need be said" of your original claim. Finally, you switch sites to something so fringe they clearly can barely do basic HTML. We've come a long way from your original claim.

False dichotomy. That would be a way to falsify evolution by means of natural selection, but it would in now way prove the reality of intelligent design.

No, -actual- dichotomy. We have two things by which we can explain complex biological structures in existence--natural selection, and design. The latter certainly exists, if nothing else, in instances of our own human genetic-engineering biological design. Would you care to stipulate another reasonable possibility?

You're on shaky ground using the word "prove" in science in the first place, but no, I do not think this would be a -falsifying- test for natural selection, as it could be claimed no matter how low the probability was, though, say, anthropic principle dodges, that is is not -impossible-. But, not all "tests" need to be falsifying tests, and it is not always the case in science that such an absolute test can be specified--as such, if the test I described resulted in an extremely low probability, it would demonstrate the ID is highly probable, but not certain. That, like tests for "dark matter", which establish probability but not certainty, does fall in the realm of a valid "test".

You're the one who cited Behe as an authority. I merely pointed out his obviously fallacious reasoning. You chose to use argument from authority.

There is no problem with citing someone as an authority. It is only fallacious if one forms an argument such as "A is certainly true because authority B says so". I made no such linkage to a particular premise, merely said Behe is a good reference for particular arguments, which would have to resolve at the level of those specific arguments. And, regardless of how many bad arguments he may have made along the way, the quality of his other arguments and analyses would be precise as much so (or not) as they end up being--dismissing -all- of them merely because "it came from Behe" or "it came from ID people" or "it came from Descartes" or "it came from France", is, again, textbook Genetic Fallacy.

Re:It's different, that's all

[tehcyder]

I agree that Christians should have freedom of speech in the same way that racists and paedophiles should.

Re:It's different, that's all

[tehcyder]

No scientist has ever said "only evolution occurs"

True, but athiests do.

I'm an atheist and I just think that the scientific theory of evolution is a lot more convincing than the risible Biblical version of a sky pilot creating the universe in six days. Except that any sensible Christian (*) will now say that Genesis is just a parable, and of course Christians don't believe it literally.

(*) That is, exluding the whack jobs who believe the Earth is six thousand years old, or whatever it is.

Re:It's different, that's all

[Cajun Hell]

We -know- design occurs, if for no other reason than biology exists that we ourselves have designed.

Good point, I overgeneralized.

What always amazes me...

[Covalent]

...is that as more technology becomes available, the true believers seem MORE certain of their faith. I'm not sure if that is a result of the technology or just a shift in the way religions operate, but it seems like questioning your faith used to be considered a good thing and is now very much a bad thing.

Re:What always amazes me...

[Boronx]

My guess is this has to do with politicizing of faith. When you have a pastor telling a 15 year old girl that she can't be a Democrat and good Christian at the same time, then you've got an earthly power structure that depends on faith for stability and anything that undermines the faith is a threat.

Re:What always amazes me...

[1s44c]

...is that as more technology becomes available, the true believers seem MORE certain of their faith.

What may be happening is that as communication tools improve those true believers have the ability to communicate more freely so the rest of us see more of their communications.

If you look at all the neo-nazi groups, pedos, and scammers on the internet you might get the impression there are more of them then there were a few years ago. The truth is they can just communicate better now.

Re:What always amazes me...

[saider]

Most likely because like minds can now find others via the intertubes, reinforcing their belief. Note that this also works for conspiracy theorists, hate groups, and other minority belief groups.

Re:What always amazes me...

[c0lo]

...is that as more technology becomes available, the true believers seem MORE certain of their faith. I'm not sure if that is a result of the technology or just a shift in the way religions operate, but it seems like questioning your faith used to be considered a good thing and is now very much a bad thing.

One possible explanation, in a quote from Andre Malraux (with my emphasis):

The great mystery is not that we should have been thrown down here at random between the profusion of matter and that of the stars; it is that from our very prison we should draw, from our own selves, images powerful enough to deny our own nothingness.

Chasing "the American dream", a even a middle class (much faster for a redneck or whitetrash) individual doesn't take much to realize that s/he's nothing and have very little control over what governs their life... what choice does such a person have? Science is not accessible to her/him and science doesn't promise a better life (not in terms of gizmos, but in terms of denying their nothingness)... where can that person find salvation other than religion and/or arms?
Is there any wonder that nowadays social frame resembles quite a lot the early** medieval times - religion practices included? (a democracy and elections? To what good is you can change the persons in power if the effects over you life are null?)

Another one, from the same author, and I'll leave it here:

Athirst for personal salvation, the West forgets that many religions had but a vague notion of the life beyond the grave; true, all great religions stake a claim on eternity, but not necessarily on man's eternal life.

** the time when it was NOT the church that was the most oppressive, but the barons and lords of the land.

Re:What always amazes me...

[mcgrew]

Indeed. You have asshats like the Florida guy (with his clean-shaven face and necktie, Satan's leash and symbol of wealth and power) directly contradicting Jesus' teachings by disrupting funerals with "god hates fags" signs... he's going straight to hell. God doesn't hate anyone, but he does hate things you do no matter who you are. That hypocrite that scrapes a secondary sexual characteristic off his face should look at where the bible says not to make your self look like a woman. He's worse than any gay I know (actually the gays I know are good people whose sins are no worse than mine or yours).

Jesus spoke of people like him and Newt Gingich -- "beware of wolves in sheep's clothing."

My own church just finished a series of sermons titled "save a life -- break the rules." The first one was "don't have sinners in your life" and recomended (and had new ones available for five bucks) Arron Chambers' Eats With Sinners. Everyone got an envelope with a twenty dollar bill to spend eating with a lost soul that Sunday. The Chambers book mentions the very thing you mention, "you can't be a democrat and a Christian" and answers it with "Hogwash".

Re:What always amazes me...

[blahplusplus]

"is that as more technology becomes available, the true believers seem MORE certain of their faith"

Most people who are deeply religious are also deeply uninformed of what the source text of their religion teaches. Most religious people are religious in name only and their believes/traditions and behaviours deviate so far from the text as to be pointless.

Religious people are sloppy thinkers in that area of their life, religion comes from non-thinking. Anyone who put the effort into thinking would never be a believer of the traditional abrahamic religions.

Is this flamebait?

[mu51c10rd]

I know this article will generate legions of flamewars and hostility. However, i would like to mention that belief in a God is not mutually exclusive with belief in science. Many religious worshipers don't think the world was literally created in 6 days, nor is 6000 years old, nor discard evolution.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a woman who does advanced digital signal processing, but who refuses to use the office microwave because it is contaminated with non-kosher food. She also thinks there were no people before 5772 years ago. That said, she isn't a very good engineer. I also know a mathematician who is a christian fundamentalist. He isn't a very good mathematician, either. Good enough to teach high-school, but that's more of a comment on how poor math education in high-school is.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[daem0n1x]

Even the extremely conservative Roman Catholic Church officially recognises evolution. Here in Europe most people never heard about the Creationism stupidity in their lives. Only in the USA and a few Muslim countries you can find batshit religious fanatics trying to push that shit around, and being taken seriously.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[Empiric]

Yes, but that was only to modify the religion to accommodate the recent findings of science. I mean, it's not like allegorical reading was being advocated by Christians in like, the -third century- or anything...

"And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone), and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world."

--Origen of Alexandria, Contra Celsum, 248 A.D.

(/sarcasm)

Re:Is this flamebait?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a matter of believing in some deity. It's that any clown can come up with a church of his own, and there will always be morons that will regard him as something special.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't tell if you are serious or being sarcastic. Trolling perhaps? The things you mention exist everywhere. EVERYWHERE.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[Anubis IV]

How so? You can believe that science is entirely correct without believing that it MUST be able to explain everything. Having faith that science can explain everything is not scientific in and of itself. That's philosophical. It may well be that it is only capable of explaining a subset of things in the universe, i.e. that it can explain the natural, but not the supernatural.

Also, see Arthur C. Clark's line that, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Re:Is this flamebait?

[Anonymous Coward]

Science is not a believe. It is a human construct that helps us understand the world around us by applying logic to it.
And you are wrong, believe in a deity and science are mutually exclusive. If you believe in there being a deity, for which there is no objective falsifiable evidence whatsoever, you are completely ignoring science.

Even more so if you believe in a very specific deity with very specific characteristics over possible other deities with other characteristics.

Science shows us there is no evidence for the existence / non existence of any Deity, either way. Logic dictates that the believe in a Deity therefor has the same credibility as the believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns, UFO's and leprechauns with pot of gold.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[Artifakt]

The whole Jesus = Zombie bit is an example of profoundly immoral argument. Name anything you believe in, absolutely anything, and somebody can oversimplify and reduce it to an absurdity or a profound insult. Marxist? Then you believe the state will wither away by getting larger so you're obviously an idiot! Capitalist? Then you worship a giant invisible hand that requires occasional human sacrefices - what a maroon! Pick a side, and then describe a strawman version of the other side and declare yourself winner, that's all you're doing.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[Quiet_Desperation]

I'm hoping you aren't a statistician.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[kidcharles]

The whole Jesus = Zombie bit is an example of profoundly immoral argument. Name anything you believe in, absolutely anything, and somebody can oversimplify and reduce it to an absurdity or a profound insult. Marxist? Then you believe the state will wither away by getting larger so you're obviously an idiot! Capitalist? Then you worship a giant invisible hand that requires occasional human sacrefices - what a maroon! Pick a side, and then describe a strawman version of the other side and declare yourself winner, that's all you're doing.

Point taken. The difference is that interpreting economics from a Marxist or capitalist viewpoint does not require ignoring well-established physical laws.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[StikyPad]

The things you mention exist everywhere. EVERYWHERE.

Oh sure, go ahead and post as an AC while trying to bring facts into our gut-based self loathing. If you don't have anything derisive to say about the US, just don't say anything at all, okay?

Re:Is this flamebait?

[Anonymous Coward]

The counterpoint is that there is more to a life of faith than the first part of Genesis and a few bits of Exodus and Joshua. And while we're at it, why is this argument only science v. Christianity? Why not Buddhism v. science? (There is no 'you' or 'me' and insisting that individuals exist is like saying that each wave is individual and not simply another ripple on the sea.)

Further, the evolution v. creation argument is thoroughly rooted in the 19th century and was carried over into the 20th (and 21st) by people who wish to flog deceased equines. It is a great way to feel superior about "my side" but otherwise a pointless discussion which is carried out with more venom and less thought than an elementary playground fight.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[doston]

I know this article will generate legions of flamewars and hostility. However, i would like to mention that belief in a God is not mutually exclusive with belief in science. Many religious worshipers don't think the world was literally created in 6 days, nor is 6000 years old, nor discard evolution.

That's because people pick and choose what they want to believe out of it. I'm not sure which is dumber, believing in the entire, ridiculous thing, word for word or just picking the parts that are socially acceptable for the time you live in and believing those. Do you just keep shedding peices of it as they become completely scientificically untenable, then pretend to be all enlightened? Or do you just continue to believe all of it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? At what point do you people just admit it's a story book written by a bunch of old, establishment men about 1800 years ago and nothing more? You do realize that the very existence of Jesus is very much debateble, right? There's actually zero proof.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[slimjim8094]

Actually, although there are some European countries that are similar (Latvia, Bulgaria, Greece, Croatia are better, Turkey is worse), the US is way down there, at least with regards to France, Germany, the UK, etc. source

At least creationism is one thing fundamentalist Muslims and Christians agree on...

Re:Is this flamebait?

[Anonymous Coward]

How so? You can believe that science is entirely correct without believing that it MUST be able to explain everything. Having faith that science can explain everything is not scientific in and of itself.

You have it backwards. If there are things that fundamentally can't be accounted for scientifically than science as a whole can't work. science is based on the assumption that past results are indicative of future results, and discrepancies indicate a flaw in the theory being tested. If there is a fundamentally unknowable force which can intercede at any time than you can never know if your theory is flawed or if the unknowable force chose to intercede just that one time and the theory will work fine next time. This means that if there is a god(s) than science will either be able to study them, or science doesn't actually work.

However the present state of scientific theory is not the same as the philosophical premise of science. It is entirely possible (and widely believed to be true) that current scientific theory is flawed and newer better models are being devised and evaluated. So one can hold to the hypothesis "God exists" without contradicting the philosophy of science. However the hypothesis "God can never be understood by science" is mutually exclusive with the hypothesis "Science works".

The conflict between science and religion, arises from the list of things science can't yet explain shrinking. If historic trends hold there will come a time where the hypothesis of god is falsified (or verified which would still piss off most religions as many are mutually exclusive.) Many religious leaders are drawing the battle lines now either because they set the bar too low (claimed their infallible god told them something that science is already falsifying), or are preparing for the future.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[mcgrew]

The difference is that interpreting economics from a Marxist or capitalist viewpoint does not require ignoring well-established physical laws.

Neither does belief in a deity or lack of one. Religion and science ask and answer different questions. Do I believe in miracles? Yes, I've witnessed them personally. Do I believe that they occured despite physical laws? No, I do not. God made those physical laws, and I don't believe he'd break his own laws.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[WillHirsch]

Were "well-established physical laws" broken the first time man escaped Earth's gravitational field?

Our understanding of science is still largely limited to conditions that we can reproduce, and this continues to put very few absolute bounds on what physical processes absolutely cannot occur, even without some completely immeasurable "magic" force existing.

This doesn't make a whole lot of difference to the best arguments for either theism or atheism, but we can do without the tired "breaking the laws of physics" trope.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[StikyPad]

You're moving the goalpost. The original statement wasn't that Creationism was more popular in the US, but that "Here in Europe most people never heard about the Creationism stupidity," which is nonsense, of course, and quite possibly fits the definition of trolling, as the AC suggested.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[slimjim8094]

Speaking of moving the goalpost, why does data about Christianity percentages in Europe have anything to do with "the Creationism stupidity"?

The numbers I posted suggest that, in at least western Europe, it's a small minority of the population - and thus not one necessarily in the public consciousness. I don't live there, but I can imagine that it's not really a topic of public discussion in the way it is here in the US.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[StikyPad]

It suggests that at least as many people have heard of Creationism, since it's one of the tenets of Christianity. And that's not even including other religions with creation myths.

The numbers you posted suggested that (likely) being aware of both Creationism and evolution, the majority agrees with the science, but that wasn't the original premise.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[RKThoadan]

Please be careful. Creationism in the sense that you are using it (Special Creation) is not in any way a tenet of Christianity. It is the tenet of some branches, but not all. Most Catholics and Mainline Protestants are most likely to fall into the Theistic Evolution camp - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution and with those groups being by far the most common in Europe it's certainly a much, much smaller issue over there.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[StikyPad]

I am using it in the sense that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God. How that process is rationalized is really beside the point.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[HeckRuler]

Whoa there. The point is that you're overestimating the importance of creationism. Claiming that all Christians know about creationism because it's tenet of the religion is circular logic. Creationism is important in Europe.
Because there are a lot of Christians in Europe.
Because creationism is important to European Christians.

Now, you're arguing not about "the Creationism stupidity", but about the concept all by itself. Sure, most of Europe has probably heard of the concept that god created everything. But "the Creationism stupidity", the cultural struggle between the Discovery Institute, fundamentalists, conservatives and the scientifically minded liberal-leaning groups isn't really an issue over in Europe.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole Jesus = Zombie bit is an example of profoundly immoral argument.

Well now, it's only immoral if you consider it bad form to insult those who deserve to be insulted.
I mean, if someone acts the fool, is it immoral to laugh at them?
On one hand, yes, being a dick works against society and it's immoral.
On the other, if you don't laugh at him, the emperor will continue to walk around in the nude. So by laughing at them you encourage them to, well, get their shit together. Constructive criticism would be the phrase.

It's only "profoundly immoral" to you because respecting your god (and only that one) is right up there with murder, ala the 10(-ish) commandments.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[Anonymous Coward]

And there are many people who do think the world was created in 6 days and reject evolution that do not reject science.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[vux984]

At what point do you people just admit it's a story book written by a bunch of old, establishment men about 1800 years ago and nothing more?

Lots of people have reached that point, and still believe in God.

Lots of people believe in God that never even had the Bible as a starting point.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[doston]

At what point do you people just admit it's a story book written by a bunch of old, establishment men about 1800 years ago and nothing more?

Lots of people have reached that point, and still believe in God.

Lots of people believe in God that never even had the Bible as a starting point.

Then that's not a "religious worshiper" or nececarily a 'worshiper' at all. Simply having a feeling there is a God or acknowledging the fact that we can't know, doesn't make anybody a worshiper, much less a religious worshiper. I'd accept agnostic or passive believer, but that's not how you worded it.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[kikito]

"Creationism, since it's one of the tenets of Christianity"

Nope.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[mu51c10rd]

Seems like my point was made in all the replies. Some are hostile towards religion, some are hostile towards atheists. My point was simply that rather than be fervently insulting those who do not think like you, realize that many are willing to accept a belief in a deity of their choice, while still maintaining that mankind has unlocked many of the mysteries of the world. I see no reason why a deity could not use the laws of nature to create things, and no reason to instantly discount the possibility of a supreme being.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS for sure!!!!!!

Re:Is this flamebait?

[vux984]

There's a whole spectrum of faith between deciding the Bible is just a book, and going full agnostic or "passive believer"

For example, lots of people have decided the Bible is just a book, but still pray, and seek communion with God.

Re:Is this flamebait?

[doston]

There's a whole spectrum of faith between deciding the Bible is just a book, and going full agnostic or "passive believer"

For example, lots of people have decided the Bible is just a book, but still pray, and seek communion with God.

And birds go tweet! :)

old news?

[ibennetch]

Maybe we're all just really high tech, but my pastor has been using his laptop in services for ten or fifteen years. Rather than carrying a Bible and notepad, many of us in the congregation have been using laptops with Bible software for following along and note taking. One of the first things my wife did when she won an iPad was to get a Bible program and set up her note-taking system with it. Somehow I'm able to avoid the urge to check my email; I think in part because I have a close network of friends who won't hesitate to call me out if I'm goofing off.

Carrying a digital Bible has many advantages; quickly changing to another reference, access to different versions, cross referencing and Strongs lookups...I'd have trouble going back to paper.

Re:old news?

[larry bagina]

My preist uses a laptop (running ubuntu and libre office) to keep track of all the boys he sexually molests.

Re:old news?

[mcgrew]

I'm not a Catholic, but I find your "joke" to be incredibly offensive and hope that so many people mod you down that the rest of your comments start at -2.

Actually, as a Linux user I find your comment to be a direct insult to ME and all other Linux users. You imply that pedophiles use Linux. Linux users and Catholics with mod points, Sic him!

Re:old news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Big deal, my pastor is Reverend Lionel Preacherbot.

As someone who grew up in Southern Baptist church

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell you that the evangelicals down south have been doing this for years and years and years. I grew up being pointed to Blueletterbible.com too. (I was around 6 when we got AOL 2.0 or something, and around 12 when we got DSL; my dad was an early adopters).

It's funny, in retrospect, that these people couldn't figure out how basic biology functions and yet can manage to pump an image of a jumping and hollering preacher 40' in the air on an enormous projection screen. Hell, some of the churches we went to even had radio shows where they broadcasted the preacher's drivel worldwide.

Re:Posting from my iPad

[Penguinisto]

The iPad and such might make it easier (especially when it comes to the really big books, as it definitely saves bulk in many cases), but I do have one nitpick with the summary...

re: " 'There was a severe concern among ministers who were afraid the printed page would be such a distraction if you put it in the hands of people in worship."

Err, the vast majority of a given population back then couldn't read, so on what rational basis would that concern be placed?

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Wait, which religion has a zombie god? That sounds awesome! I might convert from Celestia worship for that.

Church as early adopter

[davide marney]

The church has historically been an early adopter of mass communication technologies, the best example being the publication of the Gutenberg Bible which marked the start of the mass-produced book printing revolution. One Bible mobile app that I think is really notable is the YouVersion app (youversion.com): multiple translations, reading plans, bookmarks, notes, social networking; it has it all. An excellent example of a learning tool.

Re:Church as early adopter

[Quiet_Desperation]

Weren't the faith healers using wireless audio decades ago so assistants could feed them information about the people they were "healing?"

Re:Church as early adopter

[mcgrew]

Loving your enemies isn't worth teaching? Tolerance isn't worth teaching? Refraining from violence, murder, theft, adultery aren't worth teaching?

I pity you.

Re:Church as early adopter

[mcgrew]

That's not church, that's fraud. There are a whole lot of people who don't any more believe in God than Richard Dawkins does that use the faithful's faith to extract the mammon they worship from them.

Re:Church as early adopter

[Anonymous Coward]

An excellent example of a learning tool.

Yes, it's an EXCELLENT application.

Sadly it's not teaching something that's worth learning.

Actually, it is. Why the jerkiness today?

iPad Game Changer

[Ukab the Great]

Swiping things and making gestures with your fingers can now be considered christianly behavior.

Re:iPad Game Changer

[daem0n1x]

Catholics have been doing that "sign of the cross" thing for millennia. Now they can do it on their iPads!

Re:iPad Game Changer

[Ukab the Great]

The tilt sensors can be used for Genuflection Detection (tm).

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[larry bagina]

What's the difference between "God created the universe" vs "big bang created the universe"? Did you know the big bang/expansion hypothesis was from Georges Lematre, a Belgian preist -- "The Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of creation", as he described it.

Re:Posting from my iPad

[daem0n1x]

Err, the vast majority of a given population back then couldn't read, so on what rational basis would that concern be placed

The ministers were afraid people would become curious with all those pretty printed symbols and tried to learn how to read them. Then they'd lose their minister jobs. Ignorance and superstition are close friends.

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[Sarten-X]

I go to church and do not believe in God. One of our two main ministers is a Buddhist. The other is Christian (of a near-Catholic variety). We publish the sermons weekly as an audio stream, are working on video, and have considered live streaming and tablet-formatted newsletters.

Attending a church, using a given technology, holding a particular belief, and being a member of a website are all independent events, with their own independent causative situations.

As someone that doesn't go to church

[Karmashock]

this strikes me as a bad idea... a big part of going to a church service in person has to be human interactions and I'd think all the tablets would get in the way.

Re:As someone that doesn't go to church

[vlm]

OK so you have no experience or evidence but felt like posting anyway. (I married into a churchgoing family... guess where I spent last sunday morning? None of them are believers (just social/traditional) so we all get along better than might be expected...)

this strikes me as a bad idea... a big part of going to a church service in person has to be human interactions

LOL if anything its the other way around, during services.

Non-services related activities, yeah, thats nothing but kids goofing off as kids do, and parents playing "holier than thou".

I'd think all the tablets would get in the way

Some of the commandments seem a little outdated.

Re:As someone that doesn't go to church

[pitchingchris]

I would agree. I work with some technical aspects of my church and while I want to add some accessibility enhancements, I don't want to detract from the service. You don't want to turn people's focus from the speaker to a device. That said, it would be nice to have features for those with disabilities, be able to share notes, and maybe eventually be able to get a transcript that you can review later (helps reinforce things, especially if you have some hearing/vision/language impairment).

Re:As someone that doesn't go to church

[gauauu]

this strikes me as a bad idea... a big part of going to a church service in person has to be human interactions and I'd think all the tablets would get in the way.

There are really two parts to most modern church services:

"corporate worship" time, which includes singing, greeting, group prayer, etc. This is really based on the idea that human interaction really encourages, grows, and solidifies your faith.

"teaching/preaching" time, which is the sermon. This was originally based on the idea that you'd have someone more studied in scripture/theology who could teach you spiritual truths (or teach applications of those truths) in a way that the lay person might not be able to come up with themselves. During this time, I'm not interacting with people around me -- the only real advantage in doing this as a group instead of (now that we have the internet and tons of easily accessible resources) individually, is that other people in my church are hearing the same teaching, and we can discuss it together afterwards. Because of this, I believe that any tools that help you understand, remember, and apply the teaching are useful.

The funny thing is that both of these have become part of the traditional "modern" church service, although they are very different in format and purpose. I wonder how long we will continue to try to mix both things in most churches, before realizing that there may be better ways of "doing church"

Re:As someone that doesn't go to church

[mcgrew]

You've obviously been going to the wrong church with the wrong people. If none of you believe in God, what in the hell are you doing in church in the first place?? Bunch of damned hypocrites. Jesus Himself spoke of you andf your kind:

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
13But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 14Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

16Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! 17Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 18And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. 19Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 20Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. 22And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

25Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Re:As someone that doesn't go to church

[mcgrew]

"Corporate" worship? Don't you mean communal worship?

Re:As someone that doesn't go to church

[gauauu]

"Corporate" worship? Don't you mean communal worship?

Nope, I mean corporate. That's what it's often called. (google "corporate worship"). It's using the definition of corporate meaning "united or combined into one body; collective"

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming it's a Christian church, why do you and the Buddhist do that? Seems a bit like working for a tobacco company and being against smoking.

Such a distraction....

[aDSF762]

'the printed page would be such a distraction if you put it in the hands of people in worship.'

Yup thinking for yourself is a terrible distraction, you just might learn something.

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[sarysa]

Communication tools tend to get a bit more love from churches. In 10 years we could have local, interactive mass anywhere. Most churches want that...especially for the sake of the sick.

Re:Posting from my iPad

[kbonin]

The primary concern the clergy had with the laity having Bible's in their own language was that they might actually read it and compare what it said to what was being taught from the pulpit. Christianity has had almost 2000 years of significant forks - its history is rife with individuals trying to make their church more popular by blending in local non christian concepts, softening the tone of unpopular language, and removing or changing phrases that might offend. My favorite data point - God's name appears almost 7000 times in the original texts, yet most modern translations have dropped that to between three and zero! Why? Because 'its tradition not to use it', and 'it might confuse people who should believe that Jesus is God', which is hard to make people accept if the Bible is left in its original state as referring to Jesus as the Son of an Almighty God with a different name that most Christians have been told they should not even pronounce.

The power of the clergy came from them telling the people that the Bible was best left in Latin, they should believe what they were told, and follow what the King said. Their telling people to obey the King kept their comfortable relationship with the ruling classes. For a long time anyone in possession of a Bible in English would be executed, most often because they quickly realized the Trinity was a false teaching. For example, the last person officially burnt alive for this in England was a medical student in 1612.

Fun quote: "Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should not be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; we most strictly forbid their having
any translation of these books." - The Church Council of Toulouse 1229 AD

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Christianity totally rocks. Not only a zombie god, but you eat him.

Way better and less controversial or boring than other popular gods.

Karl Marx...

[Anonymous Coward]

... never foresaw that religion would become the iPiate of the Masses...

    Groucho Marx, on the other hand, embraced technology, although how it got in his pajamas we'll never know.

news?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is technology and organizations use that technology....How is this news?!

I remember when

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone from the pulpit pointed to me mid-sermon and asked me where my scriptures were. He had caught me looking at my PDA.

I held up my palm pilot, and continued reading the verses he was interested in us following.

He shook his head and said it was amazing that someone could hold the scriptures in such an itty bitty device, all those years ago.

Now, as I teach lessons at church, I'm "annoyed" because sometimes the kids are doing something OTHER than following the scriptures on their phones, and sharing it with others in the class.

I know that sometimes the word of God isn't the most enjoyable subject to be studying, but it's pretty disrespectful to be such a distraction during class.

Re:I remember when

[1s44c]

I know that sometimes the word of God isn't the most enjoyable subject to be studying, but it's pretty disrespectful to be such a distraction during class.

Yes, dam those kids who try to think for themselves. Clearly it's more important that they are respectful servants than free thinkers.

Re:I remember when

[Anonymous Coward]

Playing angry birds does require a lot of free thinking.

Re:I remember when

[Anonymous Coward]

Some things _should_ be disrespected.

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Approximately the same difference as characters in a book acknowledging the author who wrote the book and characters in a book suggesting that the book contains sufficient conditions for it to have written itself.

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[jellomizer]

It is funny how Angry Atheists and Conservative Christians. Take a such a simplistic view of the Bible, and usually cannot get past the first chapter of the Bible. And keep going back to it to disprove each other.

Genisus isn't a blueprint on how God created a world. They needed to start the book so that is how they started it. It doesn't really give a moral lesson, other then saying universe is big and complicated So complicated that God needed a day off. 7 days and 7 nights bits 7 is because it is Prime number and Prime numbers have been sacred, and most of the cultures didn't have that advanced of a number scheme of the time of the story to express large numbers.
However Genesis basically points out that a lot of our pain in the world is based on our desire for knowledge. Once we strive for knowledge we will know more pain and suffering, however after we get knowledge we as a culture can never go back to blissful ignorance.

Re:Posting from my iPad

[operagost]

A gradual increase in literacy roughly coincided with books-- especially the bible-- being available in the vernacular (that is, not just "scholarly" languages like Greek and Latin).

Re:Posting from my iPad

[operagost]

Now that purely secular authorities are in charge, I'm sure we'd never see them enhance their power through the ignorance of the populace! 2,000+ page bills, anyone? "We need to pass the health care law so that you can see what is in it."

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[jellomizer]

Catholics do.

There are 3 persons to one God.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Father is alive and kicking.
The Son died and came back to live in 3 days (a Zombie)
The Holy Spirit (a ghost)
God is 2/3 undead.

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[Sarten-X]

That's certainly a silly assumption.

What is the right religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever put any thought into.. If Jesus was born in Bethlehem then it should be Jewish or Muslin.

Another application

[Hentes]

Churches could create an app that displays the relevant verses/other information at a given time so you don't have to search for them. It could be implemented either by using a wifi network or a predetermined schedule.

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[RobertLTux]

my church streams services live and i have a few pointers

1 sort out your lighting during the install of the cameras
2 make sure that your outbound bandwidth can handle the stress of streaming
3 expand your sound "station" to hold all the "stuff" so that folks doing the various bits can coordinate
4 make sure whoever is first to speak during a service knows that Waiting For The Divine To Inspire only goes as far as when your service starts. (we actually have a projector with a timer in the corner as a Hint that shows other stuff during the service)
5 make sure that all of your Deacons "buy in" on the project before you start spending money.

email me directly with questions

Unitarian Universalist

[alexander_686]

I would assume it was a Unitarian Universalist (UU), which is what I am. I remember going to Sunday School, learning about Noah’s arch, playing the evolution game, practicing medication, being taught how the brain works (The instructor brought in real human brain in formaldehyde – we were 9).

Theology and Science are two very important methods of thoughts – designed to asked different questions - Why are we hear and how things work.

  UU are Existentialist in matters of faith. i.e. You personal belief (or non-belief) is based on your own personal experiences and not on external facts. And the best way to celebrate faith is to get together and explore it communally. That is, you believe in God because you have had a personal experience, not because Rabbi points to a burning bush while a priest point’s to a hole in the ground. As such there is a wide range belief. You can have people of Christen, Buddhist, Earth Centric, and Secular Humanism all in the same congregation.

Re:Unitarian Universalist

[mcgrew]

Theology and Science are two very important methods of thoughts â" designed to asked different questions - Why are we hear and how things work.

Dew knot truss yore spill checker. I think you mean "why we are here" rather than "why we hear." If I'm wrong please correct me (and explain what it was you really meant, because it doesn't make any sense as written). If I'm right I hope I cleared up some folks' puzzlement.

Re:Unitarian Universalist

[alexander_686]

It's spelling. Thanks for catching the mistake.

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[geoffrobinson]

I would say the same thing as a theist.

Isn't interesting how doing science requires believing in induction, that the future will be like the past. But if you don't assume that the reason why the future is like the past is due to God sustaining and creating those rules, you have laws of physics resting on nothing. There's no reason they won't change.

Or the fact that atheists trust their own rationality. I mean you have your thoughts being due to brains that weren't designed for any particular reason. Why trust your own rationality? As JBS Haldane wrote:

"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

Or that materialists like to use immaterial laws of logic.

Funny goes both ways.

A confused post

[Kupfernigk]

Just to start, the "Vulgate" (Latin translation of the Bible) is so called because Latin was the ordinary language of educated people. The Bible wasn't left in Latin; the texts that have come down to us are in Hebrew, Greek, Coptic and a few others. And the first translation at the behest of an English King was into English (the King James version.)

Your comment about modern translations is also confused. The Jews have a taboo on the pronunciation of the Name in Hebrew. This is why Jews may cheerfully say "God forbid" or "from your mouth to God's ears" - the word "God" in English isn't forbidden. (and I wouldn't directly print even a transliteration of the name on Slashdot, despite being an agnostic.) The nonexistent word "Jehovah" arises precisely because pointed versions of Torah used to point the name with the vowels of Adonai to remind the reader to substitute Adonai instead, and insufficiently educated Christians thought that it was a real word.

The real problem with the laity reading the Bible without sufficient education turned out to be entirely justified. The fear was that, through lack of scholarship, they wouldn't understand what they were reading, and would start up deviant sects. The existence of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, which began in exactly such a way, makes the point. The really weird thing to my mind is the fundamentalist Evangelicals who combine the non-Biblical overemphasis on Jesus to which you (in my view correctly) allude, with a ridiculous misunderstanding of the way to understand Genesis.

Re:A confused post

[kbonin]

Irrespective of how you might choose to translate the Hebrew word, pronounced without the missing sounds as "Yad-Hey-Vad-He", it is a personal name. Words like Adonai are titles, translated in English as "God", "Lord", which leads to to ridiculous translations like "the Lord my Lord said untoeth my Lord". Why should Christians maintain a Jewish superstition? (Didn't Jesus say he made God's name manifest? Did he say Lord? Didn't he teach his followers to pray for the sanctification of his Father's name? What name was that?) I've always found it amusing and sad that the 'author' of the Bible has had his name removed and replaced by titles, and this continues to be justified by people who claim to follow Jesus teachings.

I've also found it interesting how many smart people who studied the Bible came to the conclusion that the Trinity was a pagan teaching unsupported by scripture, Issac Newton being one of my favorite examples.

I first approached the Bible as an agnostic leaning towards atheism, read with an open mind, and a goal of proving my parents wrong. At the time my idea of light reading was books on particle physics and molecular and evolutionary biology, I came away with two strong opinions - 1) the Bible was a much more interesting book than its critics gave it credit for, especially in the few places it touched on science and the many places where it touched on archaeological history, and 2) what most people who call themselves Christians believe has very little to do with the book they claim to base their beliefs on - modern churches and teachings are nothing like first century Christians. Studying the bits of of history of Christianity that survived the many purges and burnings explains very well why this is the case.

Re:A confused post

[mcgrew]

I was with you up until this point:

The really weird thing to my mind is the fundamentalist Evangelicals who combine the non-Biblical overemphasis on Jesus

Jesus is central to Christianity. Christ IS Christianity. The old covenant with the Jews was obey every law, or spend eternity in hell. The new covenant is that your sins are forgiven; they were paid in blood by an innocent man, the son of God, who God sent to die so we may live.

As to the trinity, I never understood that myself until I was baptised a couple of years ago. I understood the father and son but not the holy ghost -- until I was filled with the holy ghost.

I'll bet some of those here who follow my journals have noticed the change in me the last couple of years without even ever having met me in the flesh. I've always been a Christian, so I didn't imagine how much being baptized would change me.

Re:A confused post

[Empiric]

I've also found it interesting how many smart people who studied the Bible came to the conclusion that the Trinity was a pagan teaching unsupported by scripture, Issac Newton being one of my favorite examples.

You can, in large part, thank Irenaeus for that.

Jesus said, "Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, I am with that one."

--Gospel of Thomas

Re:A confused post

[kikito]

"Jesus is central to Christianity. Christ IS Christianity."

In theory.

Re:A confused post

[Anonymous Coward]

The formation of sects like the witnesses or LDS has little to do with the gospels being accessible but rather rampant illiteracy of the lower classes in the US in rural areas combined with people fearing the end of the world. The witnesses especially tried to create hysteria around WW I and WW II. Had those people been able to read and understand the bible themselves, they would not have have joined those breakaway sects.

Their sects actually hinge on taking a few isolated verses and interpreting them outside of their actual context to mean something completely different.

As for your assertion that the trinity not being mentioned in the old testament, that is completely ridiculous. The psalms of David and the book of Isaiah are full of references to both the holy spirit and the son of man (Jesus).

The problem is that you might not be able to actually see what is right in front of your eyes if you don't have the spirt to guide you.

The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old testament prophesy and covenant. The lords supper mirrors the passover meal for example.

Re:A confused post

[CODiNE]

So are you a Mormon? They're always telling me how they feel the spirit and it proves their faith to them. Guess I should take their word for it? Or are you not a Mormon and I should take your word over theirs? Perhaps you're a whirling dervish?

Unfortunately whatever you felt has been claimed to be felt by those of many different religious persuasions including those who would condemn one another. Subjective phenomena can't be used as a basis for faith as it's much too common and has many known alternative causes. I believe that you felt something and if it's helped you improve as a person that's great. I won't however take it as convincing evidence of your interpretation of scripture.

Re:A confused post

[tehcyder]

As to the trinity, I never understood that myself until I was baptised a couple of years ago. I understood the father and son but not the holy ghost -- until I was filled with the holy ghost.

No, you weren't.

Re:A confused post

[Anonymous Coward]

The old covenant with the Jews was obey every law, or spend eternity in hell. The new covenant is that your sins are forgiven; they were paid in blood by an innocent man, the son of God, who God sent to die so we may live.

While true, I think that this is an oversimplification of the "old covenant". Many Christians give a clear separation of the old and new covenants (or Old and New Testaments), but this is not the intended interpretation. The Old Testament shows many examples of God offering salvation to his people. God's intent and desires do not change with the different covenants. The entire Bible is intended to be read as a story (with many themes and sub-genres) that outline God's redemptive work and the people's reactions to God's plan (and of course, judgment). The "new covenant" focuses on the completion of God's redemptive work and a restored relationship with God.

Of course, my description here is still an oversimplification.

Re:A confused post

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always found it amusing and sad that the 'author' of the Bible has had his name removed and replaced by titles, and this continues to be justified by people who claim to follow Jesus teachings.

The different titles can be somewhat frustrating when reading the English version, but I think a simple translation of "Lord", etc. misses some of the points the original authors were trying to convey about God's relationship with them. There are names which translated into important descriptions of God like "The Lord provides" or even the significance of YHWH (a name God uses to identify himself in terms of his relationship with his people). I think that today's culture misses the importance of names. Why was Jesus named Jesus/Yeshua/different-version-of-Joshua? Is Jesus really the same person that was prophesized with the name "Emmanuel"?

if (Jesus.name != "Emmanuel") { Jesus.isMessiah = false; } // Is this correct?

Doesn't surprise me

[gravis777]

LifeChurch actually wrote one of the most popular Bible apps out there. My pastor at my church has started telling people to pull out their phones and tabletts for about a year now. I went with a friend to a very traditional church at one time, and the pastor there, in his 70s, was preaching from his phone. It's still the Bible, no matter what form it takes. The electronic form makes it easier to make notes, cross reference, post to Facebook and Twitter, look up stuff online, and easier to carry. I actually find myself reading it more as I can easily carry it with me in my phone. It is probably the greatest advancement to the Bible since the Guttenberg press, with the NIV and other translations being the second greatest advancement (which you can also get in the Bible apps)

Church as slow adopter, technology drives change

[cwgmpls]

An interesting observation. But it was not the established Church that adopted the Gutenberg Bible -- printing and reading the Bible in the local language was actually heavily resisted and forbidden by the established Church of the time.

Rather, communication technology like the Gutenberg Bible played a central role in the reformation of the Church. It allowed those dissatisfied with the established church to learn and organize for themselves, and establish a new church, the Protestant movement, that was more to their liking and better suited their needs.

What will be interesting to see is not so much how established churches adopt new technology, they are generally quite slow and resist such technology. Rather, it will be interesting to see if today's disruptive communication technologies enable people to start new movements to reform the church, or create a new church better suited to our times. You may read up on the Emerging Church Movement to get a taste of what that may be like.

erm...

[Quiet_Desperation]

I think we're misusing the word zombie here.

It's my understanding that a resurrection is a complete respawn with original stats.

Re:erm...

[StikyPad]

Surely there's an XP penalty at least?

Re:erm...

[mark-t]

Depends on the edition. In first edition AD&D, you actually gained some XP when your character was raised from the dead for the first time.

Re:erm...

[Dynedain]

Except the wounds aren't healed... that sounds more like a zombie than a respawn.

Re:erm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well there were a lot of collateral zombies created when Jesus died.

For some reason the Lutheran church I was coerced into attending were really big on the whole coming back to life bit and made a really big deal out of Lazarus, the death/rebirth of Christ, and the whole dead walking the earth bit of Revelations.

Oddly they downplayed the whole flesh eating bit and called it just a metaphor as opposed to the Catholics who claim a form of zombie-alchemy transmutes the wafer/wine into flesh/blood.

Re:erm...

[Quiet_Desperation]

Not in god mode, no.

Re:erm...

[mark-t]

You are conflating "Animated Dead" and "Raise Dead". The former specifically creates undead. The latter restores actual life, but doesn't regenerate tissue that couldn't otherwise be repaired by simple magical healing, thus leading to permanent scars.

Re:Posting from my iPad

[Deep Esophagus]

Can you cite some specific examples where God's name was redacted to emphasize Jesus' deity? There are no "original texts"; there are only oldest possible copies. Whenever I'm puzzled by popular interpretation of a difficult passage, I pull up a side-by-side comparison of the oldest source material and English translation. I don't read more than three words of Greek or Hebrew, but those two sites helpfully provide word-for-word literal translations (e.g., "Thus for loves the God the system as besides the son of-him the only-generated he gives that every the one-believing into him no should-be-being-destroyed but may-be-having life eternal"). While there are numerous places that a word with multiple possible meanings can (and does) lead to conflict over interpretation, I have never seen any translation issues that change the basic theology.

Place for technology

[scottlpatterson]

I prefer NOT to use technology for most bible reading. At times it helps as I can look up things quicker, but, I often get distracted and do something else non-related. As a leader of youth (12-14 yr olds), I see lots of iPods and such. Yes, they have a bible app, but, they are also doing other things that are not related (texting, games, etc). I think each person needs to carefully weigh the pros and cons of using technology. For me, I'm much more productive using the printed bible.

LdS

[Anonymous Coward]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has two official applications for smart phones. "Gospel Library" includes not only the Scriptures, but our hymnal, monthly magazines, and worship curriculum. The other application is a directory for the congregation - names, email addresses, phone numbers, and callings. It even includes a congregation calendar.

My biggest complaint is that currently only English content is available.

Oh, the irony...

[the saltydog]

...of theists who actively deny science (evolution, global warming, complete lack of evidence of their favorite deity, etc.), yet they still get to use the fruits of all the technology derived from it.

I cringed when those ExxonMobil commercials came on during the Masters telecast... I mean, seriously - in a science test out of 31 countries, we came in 17th place?!?

I suppose Rick Santorum might think even that's too high; what else should you expect in a place where the intellectual bankruptcy of "intelligent" design is given equal weight in the classroom with evidence-based science?

Re:Oh, the irony...

[mcgrew]

theists who actively deny science

-1, redundant. Must have been a half dozen other clueless said the same thing. I am a Christian and I know a hell of a lot of other Christians, and I don't know a single one who denies science. Evolution? Even the Pope says evolution is real. Why must you lie? You must be terribly afraid of the truth.

global warming

Christianity, and no Christian sect, denies global warming. The political right wing, controlled by the oil companies, are behind that, not Christianity. Again, why must you spread lies about us? Is the truth so frightening?

complete lack of evidence of their favorite deity

You cannot deny an entity who has revealed himself to you. You're a man who has never seen an elephant and believes they're impossible, while I've been to the zoo. I need no faith to know of God's existance, but your insistance that he is impossible is nothing but faith.

To paraphrase Mr. T, "I pity da saltydog".

Re:Oh, the irony...

[the saltydog]

You should present this testable, repeatable, quantifiable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence of your particular god for your certain Nobel Prize, sir.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

So, you're saying that I lied? Where? Did I say *all* theists?

No, I didn't.

I read /. at 4 - I didn't see any other posts saying what I said. There's plenty of evidence that what I said is true - therefore, not clueless.

Do you or any of your christian friends vote GOP? If so, you're actively supporting politicians like Santorum, Perry, Palin, Bachmann, and other like-minded Talibangelicals who want to turn our secular nation into a christian theocracy. That's not an opinion - it's a demonstrable fact.

Also, if you don't think christians deny global warming, try reading this link - if nothing else, it clearly shows this particular group of young Earth creationists are clinically insane;

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/global-warming

As for the truth, you wouldn't know it if it smacked you upside the head with a Greenpeace sign.

Lastly, how do psychotic apparitions to delusional people count as evidence of anything besides mental illness? Oh, and once again, you deliberately lie about what I said, yet again - I said there never been any fact-based, empirical evidence of any of the thousands of deities mankind has kowtowed themselves to over the millenia; your personal anecdotes, while quaint, do not meet the criteria. I've only stated the truth again - I've never asserted anything but that simple fact.

Science requires evidence - faith denies evidence. I pity anyone denying reason, logic, and reality - like yourself.

Re:Oh, the irony...

[the saltydog]

Here's more proof that christians - at least, the Talibangelical wing - are actively denying global warming;

http://www.discovery.org/v/30

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[Intrepid imaginaut]

However Genesis basically points out that a lot of our pain in the world is based on our desire for knowledge

Personally my feeling is that our desire for knowledge has reduced pain. And tuberculosis. And smallpox. And the need to scavenge wood to make a cup of boiled nettles. And hey, even pain.

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Which just serves to confirm your ignorance.

No one should have an issue if someone spreads the hate based on knowledge and correct information. Informed hate, so to speak.

It's when ignorant mouth-breathers such as yourself seek to promote hate simply by parroting ignorance they may have heard or read elsewhere, probably in a schoolyard, that some of us feel the need to call you an ignorant moron.

At the very least, you should read the bible. At least then, you may have an argument to stand on.

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[Korin43]

What's the difference between "God created the universe" vs "big bang created the universe"?

One is testable and the other isn't -- obviously, we can't create another Big Bang, but we can test that, "If the Big Bang happened, the background radiation should look like X and the galaxies should act like Y, and there should be Z amounts of certain elements, etc.".

Not to mention that "God created the universe" is pretty vague. How? Which God? What can we learn from it?

Apple; Its not just for starbucks anymore.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess ipads arent just for looking smug and pretentious sitting in starbucks anymore where people go to sit and drink a 6 dollar coffee and browse facebook hoping people will think they are writing a novel just for the sake of being seeing using an ipad at starbucks. Now churchy people can go into church and show everyone that they to can spend money on a ipad.

Now they can strut it around church and say "Look at my ipad that can display a book written thousands of years ago that has been re-written and rewritten and rewritten, then revised by kings, then re-re-re-rewritten again by the church, then rewritten and rewritten and rewritten, then changed by the pope, then rewrriten again and all based on stories that happened hundreds of years after they happened by people who couldnt read or write"

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[Sarten-X]

1) A lighting "redesign" (adding 3 Source Four's from the back of the sanctuary to soften shadows) is in progress, and I'm in charge of that. We're likely only going to have one camera.

2) It can't, but can be upgraded to do so.

3) Only stuff I expect to need is a tiny Linux box. Seriously considering a Raspberry Pi with a web-based remote admin interface, because it screams "don't touch". Will likely end up with something small enough to fit in a spare slot in our audio rack.

4) We're a Unitarian Universalist church. We already run a tight schedule, because our congregation gets downright cranky if their coffee social hour gets delayed by that silly "sermon" thing.

5) Our board already likes the idea, and we have some influential/generous members who've offered to donate toward equipment and bandwidth.

Biggest roadblock is that nobody (myself included) can honestly say that a live stream is worth the time, effort, and instability it'd take to implement. There are a few technology-inclined people who are fine with managing complex systems, but many of the longtime volunteers who currently help are not. Even minor changes (like moving the mixer board) are met with resistance, because something's different. Live streaming has been discussed and is still an option for the future (and is being considered when other projects are discussed) but it's not likely to happen soon.

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of what I said, above, suggests to you that I promote hate? Or are you trying to read between the lines, as it were, and infer my attitudes about others based on my beliefs? It's fine and dandy if you want to infer that I'm superstitious, or even if you wish to infer that I'm ignorant... it's quite another to accuse me of actually promoting hatred.

Your own post, however, was sufficiently laced with direct insults and accusations to make one wonder if you, yourself, are not guilty of what you accused me of.

Happy 4th day of passover.

Hymnals are expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Filling pews with them is a not-insignificant expense. Perhaps it might be cheaper to access them online. Or add a geek factor by tying the e-hymnal to a MIDI church organ for a follow the bouncing ball sing-along.

Re:Hymnals are expensive

[dgatwood]

I jokingly suggested using a bunch of Nook/Kindle tablets instead of paper hymnals just the other day. Instead of having printed copies of two books (one for Spanish, one for English), we could have one device. Even better, with the right software, we could "push" page turn commands to all the devices over Wi-Fi instead of just updating the electronic sign. :-D

Which brings us to my contribution to technology in the liturgy. I go to church in a gothic-style church built in the late 1800s. Attached to the front wall, there is a small LCD screen on which we display the numbers of each song electronically in large numbers so that they will be visible throughout the church. It is surrounded by a wooden box with a magnetic flip-down front panel to allow access to the monitor's controls. Hanging behind that VESA-swivel-mounted screen lies a Mac Mini in a custom mounting bracket, with a custom mechanical linkage that allows the computer's power button to be pressed using a dimpled wooden power button on the underside of the box. (It's an audiophile's dream....)

The software itself is a combination of a full-screen JavaScript-based web application, a small amount of PHP code to read and update a text file, a custom daemon that listens for button presses on a remote control clicker (HID device), and a custom bit of disk arbitration code that allows you to insert a USB stick containing either an updated list of songs or a software update for the device. The background daemon also creates a computer-to-computer Wi-Fi network with a custom DHCP server, allowing it to be controlled using an iPhone or iPod Touch. It provides a full-screen iPhone web app that shows what is on the screen while controlling it, and another full-screen iPhone web app for editing the numbers in the background without affecting what is shown on the screen.

All in all, it's insanely cool under the hood, but you'd never guess how much technology is involved just by looking at. So if you ever catch me doing something with my iPhone in church, I'm probably trying to insert a new number without anyone noticing, not sending an IM.

A prayer to white jesus

[doston]

Dear Jesus in heaven, thank you for giving America the brilliance to design (in California) such a wonderous device. Thank you for giving us the cunning to use filthy brown savages in the east to bring such a wonder to the (unwashed) masses at such a low price point. Please bless our heathen slaves understand that their lives are unimportant in the big picture...even more now that we're using iPad to glority You (we always intended to...it's just the fucking Bible apps are so tedious to write). I, pastor Doston, being of sound (right wing conservative) mind, promise never to use this device to download Grindr and seek out M2M action at rest stops and never to browse gay personals looking for that which I (oddly) RAIL against to my flock each Sunday. Please grant me the courage and to only use the toilet at any rest stops I may come across, the strength to hold the iPad and my shameful member at the same time and the wisdom to know the difference between a fellow worshiper and an undercover cop. Jesus, most important of all, grant me the ability to continue everything I do and still call myself a good Christian. Amen.

Re:Posting from my iPad

[LordLucless]

I don't know about to emphasize Jesus' divinity, but every time you see LORD in small-caps in your Bible, it's replacing the tetragrammaton, which is used as a placeholder for the name of God, due to the Jews attempting to remove any possibility of violating the third commandment.

Re:Posting from my iPad

[StikyPad]

There was a severe concern among ministers who were afraid the printed page would be such a distraction if you put it in the hands of people in worship.

the vast majority of a given population back then couldn't read, so on what rational basis would that concern be placed?

What part of allegorical story don't you understand? These are just stories to illustrate a point, or "parables," if you will.

Old News

[Anonymous Coward]

Friends of mine were reading their bible and taking notes on an a handheld electronic device since the Palm Pilot was introduced in 1997. My congregation has been posting sermons online since 1998. Kindles and iPads are very common among my congregation these days, although the latter is primarily used by the children to play games before they're dismissed to their classes.

Re:Posting from my iPad

[iamhassi]

iPad is high tech? Saint Louis has a .com church. Here it is on Google Maps, the actual name of the church is faithchurchstlouis.com.

They operate in an abandoned warehouse that use to be an indoor go-kart track before they moved in.

News, only if one is not a church goer.

[lee n. field]

Modern American churches have latched onto the latest in communication technology for many decades. Think, "Amy Semple McPherson".

Often this is done without a lot of reflection on effect and appropriateness.

I'd recommend the work of T. David Gordon, on media ecology. His lectures here (Reformed Worship in the Electronic Age) on the subject are quite good, though I think he gets some aspects of chirographic culture wrong.

(And if I never see another Powerpoint presentation in a service of worship again, I'll be most happy.)

So what you're saying is ...

[jdavidb]

After 3000+ years, religion has finally finished with hides, scrolls, codices and books, and moved back to tablets?

Re:So what you're saying is ...

[DesScorp]

After 3000+ years, religion has finally finished with hides, scrolls, codices and books, and moved back to tablets?

"The Lord Jehovah gives you these 15 *crash!*... 10... 10 Commandments!"

Re:So what you're saying is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

and use the high costs of entry into high-tech world as a way to con more money out of their flocks -- which then stays home instead of going towards missions and charities operating in 3rd world countries.

Re:Posting from my iPad

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course that doesn't apply to the New Testament, since there no extant copies of ANY New Testament manuscripts that contain the tetragrammaton or any derivation thereof. A real conundrum for JWs like kbonin who insist on putting "Jehovah" in various places throughout the New Testament inconsistently "translating" what is in Greek simply "Kyrios" (Lord). I say inconsistent, because if they rendered Kyrios as "Jehovah" in all places then we would end up reading this in the NWT for Philippians 2:11 --> "Every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Jehovah to the glory of God the Father."

That doesn't exactly sit well with their Arian theology, so they selectively do not render "Jehovah" there even though it fits perfectly with their methodology in rendering Kyrios.

Re:Posting from my iPad

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about to emphasize Jesus' divinity, but every time you see LORD in small-caps in your Bible, it's replacing the tetragrammaton, which is used as a placeholder for the name of God, due to the Jews attempting to remove any possibility of violating the third commandment.

The tetragrammaton isn't a placeholder for the name of God, it is the name of God, only without vowel points (niqqud). And because of the lack of niqqud (or the use of niqqud for Adonai), and the prohibitions on saying the name of God, we don't know how it's pronounced.

Re:Posting from my iPad

[DesScorp]

The ministers were afraid people would become curious with all those pretty printed symbols and tried to learn how to read them. Then they'd lose their minister jobs. Ignorance and superstition are close friends.

Once again, the old "educate them and they'll lose faith" saw.

Except... it's not true, and never has been. The spread of literacy and Christianity went hand-in-hand in the West. You're more likely to be deeply faithful if you can read your own scriptures, not less. And especially in the case of Americans that are religious, they tend to be especially more so the higher their level of education:

"

Many in the pundit class identify religion as something of a regressive tendency, embraced by the less enlightened, the less skilled, intelligent and educated...Some might be surprised to learn that religious affiliation grows with education levels. A new University of Nebraska study finds that with each additional year of education, the odds of attending religious services increased by 15%. The educated, the study found, may not be eschewing religion, as social science has long maintained, even if their spiritual views tend to be less narrow, and less overtly tied to politics, than among the less schooled.

I've noted here in past posts that the 9/11 hijackers were all educated, and that the London bombers were British-born, with a lifetime of Western liberal educations and economic and political opportunity. Their immigrant parents were poor and uneducated when they came to the UK, and were much more moderate. And yet their Westernized, educated children chose Jihad.

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[RobertLTux]

"3) Only stuff I expect to need is a tiny Linux box. Seriously considering a Raspberry Pi with a web-based remote admin interface, because it screams "don't touch". Will likely end up with something small enough to fit in a spare slot in our audio rack."

i would say that unless you have a fairly small sanctuary you will need at least 2 cameras and you will most likely need a medium to large box to run things (we use a Mac Pro) if you are worried about folks futzing with the equipment then setup things so that you can hide the keyboard mouse and control bits when they are not IN USE.

not counting the outbound stuff if you setup things to get a good recording you just about get Live Streaming for "free"

where are the jokes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I came here hoping for some lame puns, witty observations, and amusing church technofail anecdotes. Instead it's all rage, so I'll try to make with the funny.

I was writing down a song in powerpoint for use with the church's overhead projector. When a stanza was repeated, I would just put " x2" at the end of it, to save time and space. Like "Oh happy day x2". Well for the last verse of this song, you don't sing any words, you just sing the melody as "la la la". I wasn't thinking clearly, so when they got to that verse, they saw the phrase "La x47". This wouldn't have been such a big deal if the sermon hadn't been about laziness. There were some programmers there too, and I caught them counting to make sure I had the number right!

For the entire service I felt like Ned Flanders when Reverend Lovejoy was preaching a sermon titled "What Ned Did".

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[DesScorp]

Wait, which religion has a zombie god? That sounds awesome! I might convert from Celestia worship for that.

I know you say that to get a rise of out Christians, but if you're going to do so, at least remember that Zombies are mindless. Maybe "undead" would be a little more accurate for your purposes. After all, the Bible said that Christ told the witnesses "Be not afraid", not "Braaaiiiinnnnss!".

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus was not a zombie. He was not mindless, nor did he consume anyone No was a ghoul or a white. Although his soul and intellect were intact, he was not a rotting corpse. H was not a vampire. While he transubstantiated wine into blood, he never drank it from a person. Jesus was not a ghost or a wraith. He was corporeal and still had his wounds. It is clear. Jesus was a lich.

needs balanc

[pitchingchris]

I think its over generalizing to depict extreme examples of Christianity that you learned about in the media. Irregardless of the flamewar in this thread, lets return to the topic at hand. Its the use of technology in congregation. While I believe we all have a right to worship how we see fit (and if you choose not to, that's your choice) lets put this in another context. If you were in an assembled group of people for anything, be it a conference, some work related function, or even church, do you not think that technology has the ability to detract the attention span? Here you are with the boss, leader, or pastor presenting some sales pitch, training or sermon. While technology could be great at delivering visual aides and helping you reference things, it can also hinder your ability because you are shifting your attention and have the capability to become distracted. I can see some advantage in using technology to supplement a teaching, but I feel like you need balance to make that human connection.

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[slimjim8094]

Well in so much as we can know anything about the outside world (which is an interesting, if unsolvable, question for epistemology), we can know that the world follows predictable patterns. And we can know what those patterns are.

Essentially, if we accept that the external world exists and we perceive it roughly as it "is", we can "know" things by science without relying on magical thinking.

Interestingly one of the first people to pose the problem of the external world, Descartes ("I think, therefore I am"), did manage to "prove" the existence of God - unfortunately, it was more like "well, I just know because I can feel it".

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

6. Makes sure pastor finishes at local rest stop in time for curtain call

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[JesseMcDonald]

Isn't interesting how doing science requires believing in induction, that the future will be like the past.

Living requires the assumption that the future will be like the (apparent) past. If the future is unrelated to the past, then memory and experience and choice and action are all meaningless. For there to be such a thing as choice, one must be able to predict the effects of one's actions. The point of choosing an action is to have a certain effect on the future. If the future does not follow from the past, experience is useless, and memories may well be arbitrary—after all, they're being remembered in the future compared to the time those memories were supposedly made.

You can't choose to believe that the future does not follow from the past without contradiction. Perhaps it doesn't—but there is no point in entertaining that possibility. It can never form the basis for any action or belief.

But if you don't assume that the reason why the future is like the past is due to God sustaining and creating those rules, you have laws of physics resting on nothing. There's no reason they won't change.

And if you do assume that, then you have the laws of physics resting on an unfounded belief, and there is still no reason why they won't change. Since the result is the same, one might as well choose the principle with fewer unnecessary assumptions.

Or the fact that atheists trust their own rationality. I mean you have your thoughts being due to brains that weren't designed for any particular reason. Why trust your own rationality?

You are attempting to make a rational argument against rationality. This is a contradiction. If your argument against rationality were well-founded, it would invalidate itself.

One trusts one's own rationality—within limits—because one has no choice.

I'd agree with at least some of that

[Kupfernigk]

But not all, and I think you're making my point. Many people nowadays regard religions, almost per se, as a kind of wishful nonsense or fairy tales (though the original fairy tales were pretty serious). But when you ask "Why should Christians maintain a Jewish superstition" you betray your lack of joined up knowledge. Jesus, as far as we can gather, was in almost all ways an orthodox Jew, squarely in the prophetic tradition. The origins of Christianity have to be considered in that context.

I am absolutely in agreement with you on the doctrine of the Trinity; it isn't to be found in the Bible but is an accretion as the early Church become the State religion of the Roman Empire, in both Eastern and Western flavors.

Where I disagree is that you have a very simplistic view of the history of the Churches. Your idea that " its history is rife with individuals trying to make their church more popular by blending in local non christian concepts, softening the tone of unpopular language, and removing or changing phrases that might offend" applies to the early Church and much missionary activity in Africa, but is a complete misrepresentation of the actual mainstream history of the Church, which has been trying to get back to a more authentic Christianity in many variants for a long time, from the Irish Church in the Dark Ages through the Cathars and the mainstream Protestants, along with renewal in the Catholic Church itself (the Reformation and Liberation Theology.) The simple fact that attempts at Catholic renewal have largely failed, so that the present Pope looks backwards to the Roman Empire rather than forwards, doesn't mean that there are not many Catholics who privately side with Hans Kung, for instance.

Unless you have studied the historic background in real depth - and I haven't, I am no expert - it is a great mistake to pontificate about the origins and development of Christianity. The Bible may be wrong in many respects about factual matters, but it has a significant impact on world affairs right down to the election of American politicians. It needs to be recognised for what it is: a very dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. I forget who said it, but there is a saying that the calibre of big ideas is more important even than the calibre of big guns.

Re:I'd agree with at least some of that

[Fished]

Unless you have studied the historic background in real depth - and I haven't, I am no expert - it is a great mistake to pontificate about the origins and development of Christianity.

I have (Ph.D. in New Testament and Early Christian Studies). Mind if I comment?

Whether the doctrine of the Trinity is to be found in the New Testament is debatable, and as I understood the GP's point it was that the doctrine IS found in the New Testament. In any case, it's undeniable that the doctrine of Jesus' divinity is found in the New Testament (John 1:1ff.; Phil 2), and by inference the church finds the divinity of the spirit as well. This has been true since at least the time of Clement of Rome (roughly 80AD IIRC).

The real problem that the church has is not accommodation or a lack of accommodation, but the difficulty of mapping a 1st century Jewish viewpoint into a pagan world, the trying to map THAT into a Medieval world, then trying to map THAT into a modern world, then trying to map THAT into a post-modern world. Simply put, things don't fit together the way they ought to. I highly recommend the work of N.T. Wright in this regard, as he knows more about first century Christianity and first century Judaism than all of his critics put together.

However, the key concept that we must cling to is simply that Jesus is Lord/King/Christ/Messiah, and Caesar isn't -- now and forever. That's the Christian message. (Note that Caesar tends not to like it.)
   

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[mark-t]

The primary point of Resurrection (7th level, Cl) is to restore complete vitality and life to a subject. You may be confusing it with the spell Raise Dead (3rd level, Cl), which is a spell that creates the undead you refer to. Both are considered necromantic, so it's understandable that a novice might get them mixed up.

Given, however, that Jesus wounds were still visible after his resuscitation, the conditions are probably more in line with Raise Dead (5th level, Cl), which restores life, but does not actually regenerate any tissue.

Damn! Hit the submit button instead of preview!

[mark-t]

Completely ruined the joke... This board really needs a "edit" button for people who accidentally post before the message has been completely checked.

FWIW, the third level spell is Animate Dead.

I guess I was ahead of the curve

[Anonymous Coward]

I started using a bible "app" on my Palm III back in 1998. Granted, I had to pay an exorbitant amount of money to double the internal memory to install them.

Not "New" or Original

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former Pastor, I was utilizing a Fujitsu Tablet-PC running XP to do the same things referenced in this article around 2002. (Even had the hymns and liturgy in PDF format, as well as sermon, and a separate Bible program.)

The only 'new' thing is that the technology is now dumbed-down enough for anybody to do it. (Which is cool, but doesn't strike me as 'early adoption' in any way.)

This deserves an up-mod

[Kupfernigk]

Your comment, and the article you cite, should rate as insightful, and you have put it most succinctly. At the very least, the educated tend to think more deeply about why and how things are as they are, and to consult more widely. They also may well feel more strongly about ideas than the uneducated.

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[larry bagina]

Can you also test for why the laws of physics are they way they are? Can you test for why there was a big bang in the first place?

You can write software to simulate the early universe. If gravity is too strong, it collapses back on itself. Too weak, stars won't form. And in this simulated universe, Korin43 is God, the one who set the laws of physics. Run your simulation long enough and planets will form, life will form, and intelligence will form. And they'll develop formulas to describe the laws of physics around them. But they won't know that those laws are just some numbers that God (aka Korin43) put in a config file before running the simulation.

Re:Posting from my iPad

[CODiNE]

A sad thing is that Post Vatican II Catholics ought to be reading their Bible's everyday. Yet some of the older ones are still "old school" and refuse to even look at the thing. In their minds the bible = conflict, disagreement, confusion, heresy, etc... and it's best to be completely avoided.

Re:Church as slow adopter, technology drives chang

[mcgrew]

Thank you for that, it appears that the one I attend may be one of these (WSCC). Here's a link for the lazy to what wikipedia says about the "emergent church" -- which I'd not heard of. So thank you again for expansing my knowledge.

2012

[ZankerH]

>adults with imaginary friends

Re:Posting from my iPad

[Joey Vegetables]

Agreed, and it could be added that we have Islamic scholarship to thank for much of our knowledge of the ancient world, not to mention significant scientific achievements of its own.

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[Quiet_Desperation]

I know you say that to get a rise of out Christians,

Actually, no, I didn't, as shown by my comments above how Jesus != zombie, IMHO.

Unless you meant the Celestia part because some evangelicals consider unicorns evil.

Preaching from an iPad

[Anonymous Coward]

The Rev. Landon Whitsett, Vice Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) preaches from his iPad. I've seen him do it. Fantastic!

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[mcgrew]

If you don't believe in God, why do you go to church? How can a Bhuddist priest be a Christian preacher? Your post makes no sense at all.

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[mcgrew]

It is funny how Angry Atheists and Conservative Christians [are].

There was a study a year or two ago that showed that Catholics, protestants, and agnostics had normal hippocampuses, while evangelicals and athiests have smaller than normal hippocampuses, which explains their obstinacy and anger.

However Genesis basically points out that a lot of our pain in the world is based on our desire for knowledge.

On the contrary, it isn't the desire for knowledge that causes pain, but ignorance. From Proverbs:

5. A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
        6. To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.

20. Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets:
        21. She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying,
        22. How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
        23. Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
        24. Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
        25. But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
        26. I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;

Although I think you're referring to Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good an evil. It was the tree of death and pain. You cannot know good and evil unless you know death and pain.

Ignorance is not bliss, there is such a thing as a free lunch, and you don't always get what you pay for. Don't just accept words blindly, think about what those words say.

More than the Bible

[dancinfrandsen]

Putting scriptures on an tablet/phone is just the beginning (no, not the beginning in Genesis 1:1). The faith to which I subscribe uses the web for record keeping, congregation member and leadership directories, calendaring, live video streaming of worldwide services, social networking, etc. (www.lds.org) It also uses crowd sourcing for various projects. Most articles on our website contain posting links to Facebook, g+, Delicious, and Twitter. We have a YouTube channel. We even have a site dedicated to technology projects with active users who are both professionals (paid) and volunteers - tech.lds.org. In relation to the article, our canon of scripture, as well as monthly magazines and teaching manuals, have been published on iPhone/Pad, Android, BlackBerry, Palm, WP7, and webOS. *steps down from soapbox*

Religion, just like any other organization, has a lot to gain from using technology wisely.

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[Sarten-X]

Well... the Buddhist and the Christian ministers are married, so of course they'll preach at the same church. On Palm Sunday, we had a guest speaker, who happened to also me our music director. After running into the sanctuary singing about being late for church, he wet his throat from a martini glass before speaking, and ended the service with a drum solo blending into a polka. The Christian minister danced in the aisle with one of our atheist members, before we all filed out of the sanctuary to go worship our sacred coffeepot.

I am being completely honest about all that, too.

My church is Unitarian Universalist. We don't care who you are, what you believe, or (generally) what your political preferences are, as long as you treat other people with dignity and respect. Our sermons usually revolve around taking lessons from ancient and modern philosophy, and applying them to our lives to help others and generally work toward a better society, with very loose definitions of "better". On special occasions, such as April Fool's Day, we'll adjust the service to focus more on that holiday. Services are followed by a social coffee hour, where we discuss the service and socialize.

Re:Church as slow adopter, technology drives chang

[cwgmpls]

Thanks for the reply. I'm curious, do you attend church at a Sports Car Club? Or is the link wrong?

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[kikito]

"There's no reason they won't change."

Of course. It's called the "It Works" Principle.

This principle is complemented by its cousin, the "Change" principle. Which states that if something changes, we change our views accordingly.

In other words - if suddenly magic starts working, scientists will study it, deduce its laws, and start using it regularly. But so far it doesn't work.

The original Tablets ?

[Kittenman]

Weren't they the ones that Moses brought down from Mt Sinai?

(Thank you, I'm here 'til Thursday).

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[mark-t]

If it had predictable laws, then it wouldn't be magic... it would just be science that we don't understand yet.

Magic breaks laws. That's the whole point. If you really want to follow a predictable set of laws, you just use math and technology.

Were such magic to start actually working, its inability to be predicted or quantified into a finite set of laws that govern its operation could potentially limit magic's practicality for many tasks, but that does not mean it could not ever be useful.

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[Korin43]

Can you also test for why the laws of physics are they way they are? Can you test for why there was a big bang in the first place?

I think you're confused about the scope of the Big Bang theory -- it attempts to explain what happened, not why. Whether the Big Bang was started by God, the machines, or something we're not aware of makes no difference.

I'm not interested in arguing about Creationism, I was just answering the question ("What's the difference between 'God created the universe' vs 'big bang created the universe'?")

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[dskoll]

Isn't interesting how doing science requires believing in induction, that the future will be like the past

It's worked pretty well so far. Here's a little test: You can fly in Airplane A which has been built according to the best understanding of scientific principles. Be aware that there's a tiny chance that the laws of physics will suddenly change and you'll be splattered all over a mountain.

Or you can fly in Airplane B which consists of pieces of plywood screwed haphazardly to a lead frame. Airplane B, however, has been blessed by the clergy of every major religion and will be flown only by those who have complete faith in God and God's ability to perform miracles.

Which plane would you choose to board?

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[geoffrobinson]

I don't think you get my overall point. The law-like understanding of the world is under-girded by theistic assumptions. I would go with Airplane A and theism backs that belief up.

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[DesScorp]

I know you say that to get a rise of out Christians,

Actually, no, I didn't, as shown by my comments above how Jesus != zombie, IMHO.

Unless you meant the Celestia part because some evangelicals consider unicorns evil.

I misread you then, and apologize.

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[stepho-wrs]

Magic is knowing something that others don't. So it only breaks the physical laws known by the general populace. The stereotypical example is a modern explorer encountering a jungle tribe - magic objects that can talk (phone, voice recorder) and move around by themselves (4WD). Or Clarke's summation: Any sufficiently advanced civilisation is indistinguishable from magic.

Re:Posting from my iPad

[tehcyder]

Agreed, and it could be added that we have Islamic scholarship to thank for much of our knowledge of the ancient world, not to mention significant scientific achievements of its own.

Any scholarly achievements are quite independent of faith, whether in Islam or Christianity. Being a great scientist and a devout Muslim or Christian is like being a great scientist and having red hair. One doesn't cause the other.

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[mark-t]

Clarke's law is that any sufficiently technology is indistinguishable from magic, not that any sufficiently advanced technology *IS* magic.

And as I said... real magic, if it could actually exist (which I know it cannot), I would expect to literally break any and all rules. It wouldn't be just advanced science, it would be, quite simply, magic... and nothing but.

Of course, the reverse corollary of Clarke's law also applies... that real magic would be indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology, so it stands to reason that even if real magic could exist, we might not recognize it for what it is, and would doubtless still attempt to find laws which govern its operation, just as we would with any newly discovered phenomena. With real magic, however, I would expect that odds are high such laws would ultimately reveal themselves to naught else but superstition rather than be genuine predictors of behavior. They might be still adequate for most purposes, however.

Re:Posting from my iPad

[Joey Vegetables]

I would tend to agree. But it does fly in the face of the "people of faith are irrational/ignorant/anti-science" meme that's so popular here. Actually, if there is anything that is truly irrational and ignorant, it is to judge a group of over a billion people (both Christians and Muslims would quality in the broadest sense) by the purported actions of a few. Sadly, that kind of bigotry is alive and well today.

Re:Church as slow adopter, technology drives chang

[mcgrew]

The link was wrong, sorry, here's the correct one.

Re:Religious articles? Really?

[mcgrew]

It sounds like a good church.

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[dskoll]

How does assuming that the laws of nature don't change suddenly imply "theism"? That is a non-sequitur.

Re:Religion's Selective Science

[geoffrobinson]

We all have what called basic beliefs. Beliefs that have to be assumed to function but can't be proved in the traditional sense. Think the law of non-contradiction. Induction is like that.

When we take many of those basic beliefs, we only have warrant for those assumptions when we work within a theistic framework. So induction is at home with a God who creates and sustains the laws of physics. Having laws of physics based on and hanging on nothing gives us no warrant for that assumption.