Churches Use Halo To Spread the Word, Raise Eyebrows 474
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.
Thou shalt not kill? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Well, we haven't do that exactly... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Churches uses? (Score:2, Insightful)
Killing != Murder (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I'm a Christian, and yes I love playing Halo.
Halo != Killing (Score:2, Insightful)
Halo is no different than playing cops and robbers or cowboys and indians.
Most of the indignation is from people who would bristle at Jack Thompson calling a video game a murder simulator, but since this is about a church, they are more than willing to join his side intellectually if it lets them scream hypocrisy
Re:Killing != Murder (Score:4, Insightful)
Spending priorities? (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Spending priorities? (Score:1, Insightful)
Religion is one way (could be the best way) to instill institution membership to people and from a very young age (indoctrination).
Morality or helping the poor is only a facade/marketing trick.
Re:Thou shalt not kill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well... depends on who you ask. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
The generally held view is that murder is probably the more accurate translation. The issue of whether or not it is possible to commit murder on an Elite aside, exceptions are made in many Christian teachings for war.
And besides which, dude, it's a game. Nobody actually dies unless they're stupid and play continuously for three days.
Re:Killing != Murder (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
meh (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Spending priorities? (Score:2, Insightful)
As for why they spend money on things like projectors rather than dedicating all that money to the poor: rightly or wrongly they place the value of your soul over the value of your life. That may not appear to make a lot of sense but this is why outreach and evangelism is still seen as an equal or (in some churches) superior priority to simply giving the money away.
Re:Thou shalt not kill? (Score:2, Insightful)
My question is what is your bridge to trying to justify homosexuality when it is called an abomination (Old and New Testament)? Far as wikka itself goes, I don't know enough about that, but I'm willing to bet that it falls under false gods and/or witch craft. Just my two cents.
Re:Wrong translation (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm.... I would be cautious about making such value statements.
Why would one assert that the NIV is a "superiour" translation? The King James Version was the dominant guide to Christian thought for English speaking people for more than 300 years. It would be curious to argue that the people who adhered to the guidance in the King James version were not (and are not) "inferiour" Christians to those who now use the New International Version which has only existed for (almost) the past 30 years. Given the short history of this new translation, its value, for better of for worse, is yet to be proven.
Re:Spending priorities? (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to you seeking Slashdot karma by just simply outright lying.
Firstly, how about scoping this--does this apply to martyrs as well, or just a particular subset you have in mind? You know, beyond the absurd universal you have to express, even though you yourself know it's false as you say it.
Secondly, I'd like to compare hard numbers between churches' charitable giving, corporations, and you personally. The first two I can get--and relatively speaking, churches compare positively. As for the last, I suppose we'll have wait on that--unless you care to volunteer it.
Re:Wrong translation (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Killing != Murder (Score:2, Insightful)
Here I will show you how you can build a computer.
1) find a case. 2) put the motherboard in the case. 3) add a video card.....
So now you see how to build a computer. The video comes from a card that is inserted into the motherboard. etc...
There is no contradiction in what I just wrote. It's simply several ways of saying the same thing.
Re:Thou shalt not kill? (Score:1, Insightful)
The question is legal according to whom?
Abortion is 'legal' in many states/countries etc, so then according to the bible, abortion is OK? What about Hitler? He presumably made the 'laws' in Germany so his killings were not 'murder' thus they were OK? How about dissidents in China? They are being killed according the the local laws, so that's OK too?
So now of course you'll say that those laws are wrong, and it really is murder in those cases. So then what about capital punishment in the US? There are many countries where capital punishment does not exist and the idea of the US killing prisoners is as abhorrent to them as the situation in China is to you.
Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of examples of God showing himself to be love in the Old Testament and at least one example of God being a decisive judge on the wickedness of a man (and his wife)... Not to mention all that goes down in the book of Revelation.
The more you study the whole Bible, the more you recognize its unity.
Re:Fight the false prophet (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, that's an interesting question. (Score:4, Insightful)
While there's no question that God asked the Israelites to kill in His name repeatedly in the Old Testament and to punish certain crimes with death, it's an open question whether or not Jesus tightened the prohibition against killing with his commandments to "turn the other cheek" when one is wronged and to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" when it comes to punishment of crimes.
It is quite reasonably arguable that even killing in self-defense is no longer allowed given the New Testaments focus on forgiveness and self-sacrifice, though few religious scholars would go that far. Gandhi, who was not a Christian, was one of the very few who did argue this -- even going so far as to say that England should not try to defend itself against the Nazis.
It's doubtful, though, that Christianity could've survived to be what it has become today if Constantine hadn't co-opted it into a warrior's creed.
Re:Thou shalt not kill? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible (Score:2, Insightful)
-Ed
Re:one other thought, hollywoodizing religion (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of the best evidence is coming from DNA analysis, some truly mind-breaking stuff.
Science cannot speak of the existence or nonexistence of your god or gods but your religion cannot speak to the veracity of evolutionary science. If you want to get into that debate, you're going to have to debate it from a scientific, not religious, point of view.
Re:Spending priorities? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, unless lovebyte is wandering around trying to gather tithes I don't see how his individual giving matters. Once again, he's talking about institutions that are stewards of money given for a greater purpose. Or given out of guilt, but at the very least they are non-profit entities with a responsibility to the public.
Speaking about absurd, how about you not compare an individual's giving to the church (or corporations, a hilarious comparison if you're looking for some sort of moral high ground,) and I'll not compare the horrors the church has inflicted in the past to lovebyte's abrasive comment.
Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible (Score:2, Insightful)
What kind of idiot thinks they could understand the mind of an omnipotent, omnipresent being?
Not saying I condone those actions, just saying you are retarded for thinking you understand the reasoning of God--in much the same way my 1-year-old doesn't understand *why* I don't want him to stick his finger in the light socket--just that I don't want him to do it.
Re:Sinful thoughts are still sins, so..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Except for cheaters.
Re:child abuse (Score:4, Insightful)
In other news, some people raise their children to believe that liquor (is|is not) good to drink, that meat (is|is not) OK to eat, that (conservatives|liberals) are smarter, and that (European|Asian|African) lineage is something to be proud of. None of those are objectively true but may have long-term ramifications on the child's social behavior. None of those are remotely considered child abuse, except possibly by people who are strongly in favor of the opposite position.
Don't cheapen real problems by equating random personal decisions with them. Punching your daughter in the mouth or burning your son with cigarette butts is child abuse. Raising them in the religious tradition you believe is necessary for them to enjoy a happy life (and afterward) is not.
Doesn't this make churches IRRELEVANT? (Score:2, Insightful)
I keep seeing people in this debate arguing that this is a chance for churches to be "relevant". In fact, that seems to be the entire argument for those who say that Halo 3 should be in churches. They argue that it is needed to be "relevant".
Really, though, doesn't following this course of action make churches irrelevant? It seems to me that it does. I mean, what exactly are they providing here? Kids aren't showing up for the sermons, they are showing up for Halo 3 and the entertainment. Halo 3 parties, entertainment, and socializing are something you can get just about anywhere else. You can easilly find halo tournaments, free pizza, etc in a college dorm, for example. This raises the question: if you can get this sort of entertainment with or without the church, then why is the church needed? What is it bringing to the table? Since we can get the entertainment and social time with or without the church, then having the church is irrelevant . It's existence no longer matters, because things will stay the same with or without it.
Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to make the claim that all churches are irrelevant. If a church can make the case to a person that they are a sinner, and that the Jesus that they serve can forgive sins, then they have become relevant to that person's life. Once a person believes they are a sinner, finding forgiveness of sins will be very relevant to them. The church can then bring things to the table that you can't find anywhere else. That makes the church relevant , because without them things will be different.
And this is why I find the argument that churches "need" to bring Halo in to stay "relevant" ridiculous. If your main focus is trying to provide entertainment and a social club just to lure more people in and boost attendance (and that is what many churches these days are about and how they measure success), you will become unecessary, irrelevant, and discarded. Those teens you can lure to a Halo tournament will come today, but just as soon as they can graduate, get jobs and buy their own big screen TV they will be gone. You won't ever make yourself relevant by providing Halo. Only churches that focus on their core message rather than socializing are going to be able to bring something to the table that no one else can. Only that will make them relevant to people. I'm not saying a church can't have social groups or even play video games. Those things can be great. But giving up some of the core beliefs, such as the belief that taking pleasure in violence is bad, is not going to make a church more relevent. It will in fact do the opposite, and make that church disposable.
Re:Halo is nothing compared to the Bible (Score:2, Insightful)
Thou shalt not kill? except.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:Fight the false prophet (Score:2, Insightful)
However, these 'moral lessons' aren't in a vacuum somewhere, they come from a philosophical belief system that you may or may not agree with (and the 'moral lessons' become less and less cut and dry as the target audience becomes older and older). So "conversion" comes not only from TV, but also from other kids, from teachers, religious institutions, and on, and on. What does all of that mean? It means that as a parent you will have to teach your children to deal with these ideas and not try to block out one source or another. Such a method will not work in reality.
Heh, but I guess that means that *you* will have to be able to explain what you believe and why you believe it so that a little child could understand you. Up to the task? Welcome to parenthood.
Re:Thou shalt not kill? except.... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's kind of a grand statement, do you have any actual data to back it up?
The Civil War killed more American than any other in its history. You could maybe claim the bible thumping Northern Abolitionists were responsible for it but its a stretch.
Spanish American war... no real religious angle there other than American protests were maybe not so fond of Spanish Catholics, it was mostly yellow journalism from the Hearst newspaper empire and the unbridled American Imperialism seeking to add Cuba and the Philippines to the American portfolio at the expense of Spanish imperialism.
Then of course you have the wars that killed more people than any wars in history. World War I was sparked by Serbian nationalists killing an heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, followed by a cascade of alliances pulling in one combatant after another. There wasn't really any good reason for it, it just happened, millions died, can't blame religion for it other than when religious con men cheered it on from the pulpit and helped sucker young men in to feeding themselves in to the meat grinder. That is one thing you can blame religion for, talking young men in to joining the military.
Then there is World War II well again not really any religious angle there other than the Nazi's had some pretty...interesting...takes on religion. They certinaly did use religion as a tool for manipulating the masses but again it would be a stretch to call it a religious war. That is something else you can hang on religion, it really is an opiate for the masses, and is one of the more effective ways to manipulating large numbers of people in to thinking and do what you you want.
Korea and Vietnam, purely economic idealogy and nationalist aspirations. In South Vietnam the puppets America propped up tending to be Catholic which was reviled by the Nationalist because it was the religion the French introduced during their brutal colonial occupation. It was almost entirely a war about nationalism and economics.
It is probably fair to say that in the last couple centuries religion has been a factor in wars but there really haven't been all that many religious wars that I can think of. Northern Ireleand certainly had a big religious component, but Irish nationalist was just as important if not more so.
It would probably be a better assertion that religion certainly has been used in a tool to promote and encourage wars, but at heart wars are just about one group or person seeking power and wealth at the expense of another.
The single scariest thing I can think of linking religion and militarism is the extent to which the American military, especially the United States Air Force and the Air Force Academy, have been taken over by born again Christians. These are the people who run a nuclear arsenal big enough to actually creat an apocalypse. The U.S. military seems to think strong religious background might is desirable for people in this position of responsibility, I personally don't think people who subscribe to an apocryphal religion should be allowed anywhere near nuclear weapons.
Re:Thou shalt not kill? (Score:3, Insightful)