Technology For the Masses: Churches Going Hi-Tech 249
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."
Doesn't surprise me (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Re:Not really shocking... (Score:4, Interesting)
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:It's different, that's all (Score:2, Interesting)
"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 (Score:2, Interesting)
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:A confused post (Score:5, Interesting)
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.