Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Churches Use Halo To Spread the Word, Raise Eyebrows

Posted by Zonk on Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:29 AM
from the now-turn-to-the-holy-book-of-cortana-chapter-twelve dept.
The New York Times has a lengthy look at an unorthodox way to spread the religious word: Halo 3 multiplayer matches. Churches across the country have adopted 'Halo Nights' as a way to get kids together in religious centers and church basements. "The alliance of popular culture and evangelism is challenging churches much as bingo games did in the 1960s. And the question fits into a rich debate about how far churches should go to reach young people. Far from being defensive, church leaders who support Halo -- despite its "thou shalt kill" credo -- celebrate it as a modern and sometimes singularly effective tool. It is crucial, they say, to reach the elusive audience of boys and young men." Just the same, the use of the game is raising concerns among some onlookers. GamePolitics reports that many faith communities are heavily debating the issue.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Halo In Church Points Out ESRB Flaws 185 comments
The recent controversy over church groups making use of Halo 3 to attract young men to their services continues to be a subject of debate outside of the fan press. GamePolitics notes that the debate is indicative of flaws in the ESRB's system, and in mainstream culture's understanding of those ratings. "When you look at it like that, it's hard to blame those who criticize bringing Halo into sacred space. For the most part the critics are not gamers and have no concept of the vast difference between Halo and GTA. All they know is that the games share a common M rating, a designation assigned by the game industry itself, theoretically for the protection of impressionable youth. For the uninitiated it's only logical to assume the content must be of a similar character as well. As someone who has played both, I'd argue that there is a world of difference between Halo and GTA."
[+] News: Pope Cancels Speech After Scientists Protest 1507 comments
Reservoir Hill writes "Pope Benedict XVI canceled a speech at Rome's La Sapienza university in the face of protests led by scientists opposed to a high-profile visit to a secular setting by the head of the Catholic Church. Sixty-seven professors and researchers of the university's physics department joined in the call for the pope to stay away protesting the planned visit recalled a 1990 speech in which the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, seemed to justify the Inquisition's verdict against Galileo in 1633. In the speech, Ratzinger quoted an Austrian philosopher who said the ruling was 'rational and just' and concluded with the remark: 'The faith does not grow from resentment and the rejection of rationality, but from its fundamental affirmation, and from being rooted in a still greater form of reason.' The protest against the visit was spearheaded by physicist Marcello Cini who wrote the rector complaining of an 'incredible violation" of the university's autonomy. Cini said of Benedict's cancellation: 'By canceling, he is playing the victim, which is very intelligent. It will be a pretext for accusing us of refusing dialogue.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by IndustrialComplex (975015) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @10:32AM (#20911259)
    In Halo3 you are fighting against what could easily be called a 'False Prophet'. Sounds like good justification for a Christian church.
  • by Aladrin (926209) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @10:34AM (#20911291)
    I don't think 'thou shalt not kill' ever refered to anything except humans. Otherwise, all the Christians that are eating meat will have some serious explaining to do.

    I think this is a good idea for the church... Get the kids used to being at the church, and interacting with their friends there, possibly even friends that they never get to see otherwise. It establishes it as a friendly place that they want to be, the kids have some supervision while they play, and everyone involved is happy.
    • by speaker of the truth (1112181) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @10:55AM (#20911579)

      I don't think 'thou shalt not kill' ever refered to anything except humans. Otherwise, all the Christians that are eating meat will have some serious explaining to do.
      Modern Christians say its actually thou shalt not murder with legally sanction killing being permissible. So yes, even humans can be killed.
      • by DragonWriter (970822) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @12:51PM (#20913473)

        Modern Christians say its actually thou shalt not murder with legally sanction killing being permissible.


        Actually, the idea that the proper understanding of the sense of the commandment is a prohibition on murder (which doesn't necessary give unlimited sanction to any killing a government sanctions, either) and not all killing isn't some innovation that "modern Christians" invented; it was the general interpretation before Christ (its hardly as if ancient Israel viewed either war or capital punishment as forbidden), and also the dominant interpretation from the earliest Christianity.

        If anything, the "innovation" throughout the history of Christianity has been finding progressively broader classes of acts of killing that are considered within the prohibition of the commandment.
    • by hey! (33014) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @10:58AM (#20911611) Homepage Journal
      Actually, a vast body of Old Testament law related to commanding and regulating animal sacrifice; although you could offer grain, animals were clearly "better", and you'd better not be some cheapskate offering bread if you had plenty of livestock.

      These regulations also appear to be related to the post-Sinai period of Exodus, since they clearly assume a nomadic existence, so they can hardly be considered as contradicting the Ten Commandments (which in Jewish terms is pre-school stuff; God has a lot more to say about human conduct than things like "Thou shall not kill").

      The nature of these commandments is fascinating because there is no independent historical or archaeological corroboration of the Exodus story. Although it is most historically probable that these regulations were reconstructed at a date later than the Babylonian captivity, they have a certain verisimilitude. The difficulties posed by reconciling a fixed lifestyle with commandments assuming a nomadic existence seems to confirm that in their folk memory at least, the Israelites were nomads.

      In any case, anybody who cites Leviticus as proof that homosexuality or Wicca is an abomination will have a difficult time proving that they really consider the commandments of Leviticus binding.
    • by gnuman99 (746007) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @02:48PM (#20915429)
      And how about explaining the Crusades? Oh, I guess they were not humans at the time.

      The support for military? The support for the death penalty? The support for these two comes directly from the so called religious crowd. Oh, but as long as they protest the abortion thing, I guess that makes it all better. They are not much different from the jihadists or other religious fanatics.

      "Thou shalt not kill except for enemies of God and you can choose who is my enemy" - that seems to be how things are these days in both "devout christian" and "devout muslim" crowds while both proclaiming "peaceful religion". More people died in religious wars as percentage of population than any other wars in the history of this planet.

      I guess the mod points here will depend who gets to read the message. I hope they don't declare some holy war or send a sniper my way. Sorry about the rant, but churches and religions are as much about "Thou shalt not kill" as much as it suits their goals. If their goals have any conflict with it, they have a very easy way around the so called "god's rules".

        • by Lemming Mark (849014) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @12:10PM (#20912809) Homepage

          Why would one assert that the NIV is a "superiour" translation? The King James Version was the dominant guide to Christian thought for English speaking people for more than 300 years. It would be curious to argue that the people who adhered to the guidance in the King James version were not (and are not) "inferiour" Christians to those who now use the New International Version which has only existed for (almost) the past 30 years. Given the short history of this new translation, its value, for better of for worse, is yet to be proven.
          I'd argue there's a case for judging whether something is a "superior" translation strictly on the basis of the quality of source materials available for the translator to work with (more direct translation vs a translation of a translation of a ...) and better understanding of the nuances of ancient language that are made possible by more recent academic research. I'd say this is fairly independent of how the book was received as a religious text. It doesn't necessarily mean that the people who used that translation were inferior Christians but it may mean the texts they were using corresponded less closely to the older versions in ancient languages.

          Whether the quality of the translation in terms of closeness to the original actually matters to the KJV as a holy book will doubtless be debated. I have friends who are convinced that the KJV is the one correct translation and I imagine they believe this on the basis of the content and on the basis of how they've been taught to interpret it - independently of what translators may describe as being technically the best. I'd say that it rather depends whether you believe you should follow the original texts as best understood academically, or whether you believe in a specific interpretation of the texts which you may feel to be superior spiritually somehow.

          Personally I think it's very important to realise that all translations are likely imperfect, but that alternative translations could offer valuable insights into the subject matter and the process of how modern versions were arrived at.
        • Re:Wrong translation (Score:5, Interesting)

          by alan_dershowitz (586542) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @12:21PM (#20912993)
          Why would one assert that the NIV is a "superiour" translation?

          Consider KJV:

          1. We know more about Biblical culture now than anyone did in 1611, which affects translation.
          2. We know more about Biblical language now than anyone did in 1611, which obviously affects translation.
          3. Modern translations take into account hundreds of additional material sources that were not available in 1611, not the least of which are the Dead Sea Scrolls which account for very increased understanding of both 1 and 2.
          4. The KJV New Testament was based in large part on the Latin Textus Receptus which meant a) it's a translation of a translation and b) the TR itself was rushed to beat other Greek texts and had hundreds of errors (many of which were corrected by the 3rd edition used for the KJV, but still, consider the source.)
          5.. The KJV translation was extremely controversial at the time by the Roman Catholic Church, who would make the very same arguments about the KJV that you are making about the NIV right now. By the standards for controversy it was judged against, the KJV could still be argued to be a bad translation.
          6. English has changed since 1611.

          I'm not saying NIV it IS better, I'm saying why anyone would assert it's status as a superior translation, as you asked. No one was saying that Christians using the KJV were inferior Christians, but I think a case could be made for Bible translation affecting that. Consider if the (mis)translation said something like "Thou SHALL kill."

          Note: I am not an expert on ANY of this.
  • Halo? Eh. (Score:4, Funny)

    by morari (1080535) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @10:36AM (#20911305) Journal
    DooM would be in better line with the church's views.
  • by GweeDo (127172) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @10:36AM (#20911307) Homepage
    At my church (church of about 100 in a town of 2000) we happily use video games and things like that to bring teens in. While we have never used M rated games, we do have Wii tournaments from time to time. It is a great way to give the kids something safe to do (in a town of 2000 there isn't much) and gets them comfortable with the Church and the Youth Leaders we have.

    In regards to Halo 3 though, I do know our Senior High Sunday School teacher used it as the basis for his lesson last week. He actually had me come up and give a brief overview of the story from Halo 1 and 2 to start things off ;)

    Churches do need to be careful to be "in the world, but not of it", but at the same time don't be afraid of using main stream culture and entertainment in new ways to both teach and to simply get people interested.
      • by kjkeefe (581605) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @10:57AM (#20911607)
        I've always wondered how churches like that can rationalize spending money on a 20 foot screen with a nice projector and 18" subwoofer when that money could be applied to more useful pursuits such as helping the poor. Every time I drive past a church that is building a new multi-million dollar extension with fine architecture on expensive land I wonder the same thing. Why not give that money to single mothers trying to keep their families above water or drug rehabilitation programs or education programs for ex-convicts?

        If you sit back and think of the dollars tied up in religious infrastructure, it is absolutely astounding. Ask yourself, if you combine the equity of all religious property within a 2 mile radius of your house, how much do you get? I know for me, I would estimate it at around 2 million...

        I guess my first mistake was wondering how churches can _rationalize_ anything...
  • Killing != Murder (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tbcpp (797625) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @10:40AM (#20911375)
    It's actually a common misconception that the Bible condemns killing. The misquoted verse from the 10 commandments was mis-translated in the KJV as "thou shalt not kill". Instead it should have been translated as "thou shalt not murder". The Bible (and God it's author) does not condemn killing in defence, punishment for a crime, or in wartime. What it does condemn is murder. So with this in mind Halo doesn't violate the 10 commandments at all.

    Yes, I'm a Christian, and yes I love playing Halo.
    • by Applekid (993327) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @10:56AM (#20911603)

      So with this in mind Halo doesn't violate the 10 commandments at all.
      Heh, and all this time I thought it was because it was just a game and not real. Silly me. :)
    • by Pojut (1027544) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @11:17AM (#20911911) Homepage

      The Bible (and God it's author)
      I was under the impression that god DIDN'T write the bible...I mean, after all, if god was the author, why do bible's have copyright dates? Is god afraid of someone spreading the word illegally?

      The bible was written by man...just like the torah, just like the que'ran, just like every religious book. Written by men who thought the world was flat.
    • Re:Killing != Murder (Score:5, Interesting)

      by vertinox (846076) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @11:56AM (#20912539)
      The Bible (and God it's author) does not condemn killing in defence, punishment for a crime, or in wartime.

      Oddly enough the old testament seems to be advocating genocide. Shortly after Moses got the 10 commandments, god told Joshua to kill off everyone (including women and children) in cities who would not submit to the chosen people's rule.

      I'd also like to point out many early non-Catholic Christians actually viewed the old testament as evil and written by the hand of a demi-urge. However the Papacy would have none of that and had most of these people put to death over the course of several thousand years.

      Most notably were the Cathars and various other gnostic [wikipedia.org] sects. If the Papacy had only the new testament to work with then they would have little to justify their wars of religion and garner support from newly converted pagans who wished to continue their warring ways.

      To be really fair, there is no mention of hell in the old testament and is actually only referred to as the physical location in the new testament in name (not the lake of fire in revelations which isn't referred to as directly as hell) which was pulled directly to Roman-pagan mythology hades as a form of underworld punishment rather then the concept of "separation of God".

      And if really want to get to be a historical stickler there is no ancient Greek word for "homosexual" which Leviticus refers too but rather the word means "soft" which could mean weak willed by context.

      At any rate, simply using the 10 commandments literally needs some context to the situation. You also have to remember there are plenty of other dietary and Jewish old testament laws that many people ignore which are just as important. I mean we still don't put people to death for working on the Sabbath (which according to Jewish law is Saturday by the way and not Sunday) nor do we sell our daughters into slavery.
  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @10:53AM (#20911557)
    Sure, it would be awesome at first, gibbing the Son of God. He'll keep turning the other cheek, keep getting fragged, keep resurrecting. Eventually it'll become boring and I'd grow tired of it. He wins by default.
  • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Tuesday October 09 2007, @10:54AM (#20911565) Homepage Journal

    They do realize that "Halo" may not mean the same thing that they're used to, don't they?

  • by downix (84795) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @11:03AM (#20911701) Homepage
    Praise the lord and pass the ammunition
    • Re:GAME NIGHT! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CoffeeJedi (90936) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @11:48AM (#20912415)
      Yeah right, because seeing some naked boobies is way worse than seeing a person get tortured and beaten in excruciatingly graphic bloody detail?

      That is nonsensical on so many levels. Christianity makes my brain hurt.
    • by FuzzyDaddy (584528) on Tuesday October 09 2007, @12:42PM (#20913319) Journal
      As someone who has lived both a religious and nonreligious life (although moving in the opposite direction you have), I agree with your basic point - my basic concepts of right and wrong have not changed, and I certainly don't feel that a religious life is the only proper way to live. It works for me.

      The important thing, as in so many things, is to be careful about who you lump together. I have a friend who is a rabbi (he doesn't have a pulpit, he's a headmaster at a jewish school.) He says that when he travels, and his seatmate finds out he's a rabbi, he inevitably gets a long story about the persons awful rabbi growing up, or their terrible hebrew school experience, or other disappointments with their jewish experience. The thing is, this guys is the epitome of tolerance, cheerfulness, and thoughtfulness. He takes it all in good humor, but I think is saddened to see people rejecting a religious life because of their bad childhood experiences, without realizing that there are other ways to do it.

      I don't know much about christian communities, and it sounds like you've seen a huge lack of humility, and a huge amount of hypocrisy. Religion isn't a cure all for bad behavior. At it's best, it provides a few guideposts for seeing where the pitfalls of being human are, and some clues as to how to approach them. At it's worst... well, there have been horrors visited on the world by the religious and nonreligious alike.