Holy iPad Slayer! Company Releases World's First Christian Tablet

Velcroman1 writes "Steve Jobs worshippers need not apply. But if you're looking to get in God's good graces, or you're simply in the market for a family-friendly tablet, you may want to check out Family Christian's Edifi. Billed as the world's first Christian tablet, its genesis came with the inevitable intersection of technology and religion, according to Brian Honorable, a technology supervisor at Family Christian, the group that sells the tablet. 'We wanted to be able to offer our customers the ability to use our Holy Bible application, which has 27 different English translations of the Bible,' Honorable said."

Comments

Re:Resistive Touch. Move along.

[narcc]

Capacitive touch screen suck at precision.

Resistive touch screens are awesome for precision. If I wanted a tablet for writing or drawing, I'd be stupid to opt for a capacitive touch screen over a resistive touch screen.

RIM has a patent on a hybrid resistive-capacitive touchscreen, which is really the best of both worlds. Finger fondling capacitive screen, cheap stylus friendly resistive touch screen. The Galaxy Note uses a more feature-rich Wacom digitizer which is awesome. It's a shame that they're the only company that understands how useful a stylus can be on a slab.

To answer Steve Jobs' question, "Who wants a stylus?": just about everybody. (No, those fat fake rubber finger "stylus" things don't count. They don't even come close.)

Re:Their guranatee:

[siddesu]

Even better: since it isn't Apple, you can download and watch all the pr0n in the world on it.

Christian != "family-friendly"

[wickerprints]

From the summary: "But if you're looking to get in God's good graces, or you're simply in the market for a family-friendly tablet,..."

Sorry, but Christian != "family-friendly." There is nothing "friendly" about brainwashing and indoctrinating your children into a superstitious, fearful, dogmatic, and guilt-obsessed worldview. Conversely, there is nothing intrinsically "unfriendly" about being non-Christian--i.e., it is a fallacy to imply that Christians have some kind of exclusive claim on being more wholesome or moral than others, simply by being Christian.

Oh, and one more thing: this whole article is just a thinly-veiled slashvertisement.

Re:Christian != "family-friendly"

[cawpin]

There is nothing "friendly" about brainwashing and indoctrinating your children into a superstitious, fearful, dogmatic, and guilt-obsessed worldview.

There's nothing friendly about shoving all Christians into your brainwashed, fearful, dogmatic and guilt-obsessed personal view of them either. You don't have a claim to being any more intelligent or moral than those you denounce. You complain about them believing something you may not even though them believing impacts you in no way whatsoever.

Re:Christian != "family-friendly"

[Empiric]

Okay, I'm listening. What points of consensus on morality has the atheist community reached? Just a "Top 5" moral axioms that you'd say we could ask another atheist at random on and see that there's agreement with you on validity and priority.

A review of the history of Western Philosophy will show clearly that no secular consensus on the most basic points (see e.g. Hedonism, Utilitarianism, Altruism, Egoism, Stoicism, Pragmatism, etc., etc., etc.) has been achieved in 4000 years, and it isn't going to start now. In reality, unless you can specify your justification for your moral axioms in terms of them being objectively valid and have the means to demonstrate that validity, chances are you have a generalized set of views you can't actually defend, and have assimilated them indirectly from theism as the cultural background norms. On that level, though, it's just subjective opinion you can ignore at will, and not a system of "morality" at all, rather just using the word "moral" in lieu of having any specific content to it. Getting credit merely for using the word "morality" while feeling free to ignore any and all specific expectations of any moral system, whenever and however you wish, though, seems to generally be the actual goal in the first place.

But, again, we're listening.

Re:Christian != "family-friendly"

[Empiric]

*citations needed

Sure, I can see how its fun to claim that because something is mentioned in a book, the author fully advocates it and is "glorifying" it, even if he directly says the opposite viewpoint about the event, but the only problem there is its completely invalid. Unless you have some insight to share on how every historian writing about World War 2 is thereby of course saying we should all be Nazis, because they are mentioned in the book, that is. Why the double-standard with the knowledge of your own brain, and how you react to every other book in existence, every single day?

Re:Christian != "family-friendly"

[LeanSystems]

What points of consensus on morality has the atheist community reached?

Your ignorance shows no bounds and therefore I quit reading at that point. Atheism (a = not, theism = belief in a god) is anyone that does not believe in a God. There is not single belief system for atheist. That would be like asking if you can get clear consensus on any issue because all the people you ask live in the same city/state/country/planet.

I would also add that you could easily ask 5 Christians about certian moral issues and recieve 5 different answers... examples are: what you can do on the sabbath, should a woman submit to her husband, does the Pope have devine power, is it allowed to have multiple wives, birth control, and abortion.

So your smug comment will be applauded by Christians who probably have less in common with you than this atheist.

Re:Christian != "family-friendly"

[ceoyoyo]

Aw, a Christian apologist. Now, for many of the things I mentioned the bible DOES appear to support them. Several of the things I mentioned are actually either ordered or committed by God himself. But that's beside the point... my post didn't actually say that the bible condoned ANY of those things. Only that it contained them. Whoopsie. You should read carefully before bringing out the brimstone.

If a television program depicts (non biblical) mass rape, but as a bad thing, do you think Christian moralists would judge it appropriate for children?

Re:Christian != "family-friendly"

[meglon]

As long as it impacts me IN NO WAY, i don't care what they believe. However, i cannot fathom someone having the incredible level of ignorance or intentional stupidity required by that person to say that religion only affects "believers" and no one else, especially if you live in the US where fanatical religious extremists have been trying to indoctrinate kids through schooling, rewriting history, trying to elevate themselves above everyone else, and generally trying to subvert the freedom and liberty of ANYONE who doesn't "believe" like they do for decades upon decades.

Re:0_0

[Penguinisto]

As a man who considers himself Christian, I'm saying the same damned thing.

Chalk it up to a scam angle used to push out crap tablets.

(besides, if you want a bible on an iPad that bad, well: go get one - there's like a bajillion of them in there!)

Really? THIS made the front page?

[sjbe]

Umm, why are we giving what is almost certainly a crappy piece of equipment with a marketing tie in to a bizarre cult the time of day? Someone who is dumb enough or deluded enough to buy one of these they certainly isn't reading slashdot. If people want to go off and read their weird, nonsensical stories about invisible friends in the sky, fine. But this certainly isn't news for nerds nor is it stuff that matters.

Re:27 Translations, You Say?

[Opportunist]

One of my favorite sites.

Whenever you need to take a Bible quote out of context to tick the religious guys off, you may rest assured that there is a version that makes whatever point you're trying to make.

Proof?

It's in the bible that Jesus was a Pedo. No, really. Just read Matt. 19:14, King James: "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."