Free Bible app hits 10 million downloads

[LAGC]

Can your cell bring you closer to God?

Oklahoma based LifeChurch.tv thinks so. Tuesday the church announced more than ten million smartphone users worldwide have downloaded its free Bible application. LifeChurch hopes by having a copy handy, people will be more likely to read scripture.

The app, which is based on the church-funded website, YouVersion.com, launched in July of 2008. Since then, users have spent 3.5 billion minutes trolling through Bible passages. Yes- that was billion.

During a webcast on YouVersion.com, pastor Bobby Gruenewald announced what he called a “revolution” taking place.

“Could this be the generation that’s more engaged with God than any other generation in history?” he asked.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/19/bible-app-hits-10-million-downloads/?hpt=T2

Makes you wonder how many of those 10 million downloads are atheists who just like to have a Bible reference handy to make a point... I can't tell you how many times I've had some evangelical stranger in public spout off some non-sense (either to me or someone else) and it would be fun to counter with some "illuminating" verses detailing the angry, genocidal God from the Old Testament that killed women and children for fun...

"There's an app for that!"

[rug]

1. Won't catch up to porn downloads.

[ZombieHorde]

2. How many will actually read what they have downloaded? nt

[laconicsax]

3. What does "read" mean?

:shrug:

[ZombieHorde]

5. Funny. nt

[dimbear]

4. They ought to call this the Tyndale app in memory of all those who died

at the hands of other Christians for the crime of trying to publish Bibles.

[Sal316]

6. A 'revolution'?

Hardly.

YouVersion is handy, but I'm not convinced that it's a "revolution", as Bobby is. IMO, it's more about convenience than anything else.

and it would be fun to counter with some "illuminating" verses detailing the angry, genocidal God from the Old Testament that killed women and children for fun...

*facepalm*

[cleanhippie]

7. Is your *facepalm* due to the hypocrisy found in the bible that is embarrasing?

I mean, "some "illuminating" verses detailing the angry, genocidal God from the Old Testament that killed women and children for fun." is a factual statement.

[Sal316]

8. No, my *facepalm* is for the hypocrisy..

...and the ignorance.

Reading into the text is a favorite trick of the fundieloons and something that they're rightfully criticized for.

The "factual" statement is the same thing as that, only wearing a different pair of shoes.

It's like those that see the threat of terrorism in everything Muslim.... look long enough and your brain will eventually find a way to justify your bias.

[cleanhippie]

9. So are you saying that it is not true?

Are you saying that there is not "the angry, genocidal God from the Old Testament that killed women and children for fun.." and that it is all just something one can "read into" the bible?

[Sal316]

10. That's exactly what I'm saying.

It's looking at scripture through the same eyes as the anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-everything fundieloons.

[cleanhippie]

11. Then who is it that does all that horrific stuff in the OT?

Cause in so many places, it states quite emphatically, that it is god doing it all.

What am I missing when I read about god ordering the genocide of the Ameleks, as described in 1 Samuel 15.

15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

I am just reading it, plain and simple, and it sure looks like god ordered Saul to kill everyone, right?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

12. Silly, you're not supposed to read it literally

At least not this verse. And maybe some others. I'm just confused about which ones should be taken literally, which are allegory, and which verses have another interpretation. Maybe Sal can enlighten us on exactly how that process works.

[darkstar3]

13. I've been waiting for that,

but I never seem to get anything but dodging and faux victimhood.

[Sal316]

16. No...

It's that you just don't get it.

[darkstar3]

19. Well,

I'm still waiting on an explanation of the origin and methodology of the measuring stick you apply to scripture, so until you provide it there's nothing to get.

[Sal316]

15. Like I said, if you want to be told what to think...

...find a fundie. They'll be more than happy to tell you.

Of course, sticking with that implies that humans don't, or can't, grow in knowledge and wisdom over their lifetime, that we can't ever understand anything in a new, or different, way, and that how things were said/done thousands of years ago are exactly how they should be done today.

In other words, it's stupid.

Scriptural interpretation has been around for thousands of years. In fact, the earliest examples of interpretation we have appear in the Bible itself. Zechariah reinterprets Ezekiel, Jeremiah often refers to Hosea and Micah, and Chronicles substantially rewrites Kings. Why should today be any different.

What is this incessant need to put scriptural interpretation into either a "right" or "wrong" box? Why do some believe that the church needs to march in lockstep uniformity in all matters? Is it to justify a distorted view of religious folks that pigeonholes them as brainless sheep? Or is it that admitting that believers are, oh, smart and capable of rational and independent thought too much to bear?

Oh, and the processes are exegesis and homiletics with a splash of discernment thrown in for flavor. It's a lifetime learning process, but you can start with linguistics (Hebrew, Koine Greek, Aramaic) and cultural geography. Simply reading things stripping them of all their context is a neat trick.... you can get anything to say what you want it to say by doing that.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

20. Where did I say that I wanted to "be told what to think"?

I was using snark to point out the absurdity of trying to make sense out of any interpretation of the myths written by bronze age nomadic tribes from the middle east. You seem to suggest that you have a better way of interpreting the bible. Why is your method better than a fundie's?

Sal316 wrote:
In other words, it's stupid.

Bingo!

[trotsky]

18. +1

And on cue, the apologist uses the same old weasel technique he's nearly perfected.

[laconicsax]

21. It isn't just meant to be taken metaphorically based on the verse, but based on the individual words

Read some of the nonsense Christian apologetics on Jephthah. Apparently, the word in Hebrew that means "burnt offering" only means "burnt offering" in certain contexts.

[Sal316]

14. You said that God does this "for fun".

That's what makes your statement crap.

Second, I'm sure you understand the relationship between the Hebrews and the Amalekites, including the slaughter of the Hebrews by the Amalekites during the Exodus? I'm also sure you understand Amalekites in the post-biblical era, right?

I'm sure you got what happened to Saul later in 1 Sam15 and into 1Sam 16 because he hoarded the 'good stuff'.

You can look at it simply, and that's one way to do it.

However, you miss so much when you stick to strict literalism.

[cleanhippie]

17. Noted.

How do you know god did not do it for fun? Maybe it was all just a big joke to him.

The rest, you are rationalizing. I do know the history between the Hebrews and the Ameleks, but nothing they did before deserved total genocide.

And what Happened to Saul is irrelevant. He disobeyed and was punished. SO what?

You are right, there is context, but NONE of that context explains whay an all-powereful and all knowing god would command the genocide of a race of people, THAT HE HIMSELF CREATED, that he himself could have killed, that he himself could have forgiven, that he himself.......oh, you get my point.


Back to the original question: Are you saying that there is not "the angry, genocidal God from the Old Testament that killed women and children for fun?"

By your answers, he did it, yes, just not for fun. What could possibly be so bad that he needed to command other humans to kill other humans? He sounds like an angry coward to me.

[Sal316]

28. Continuing on....

Your theory that God did this 'just for fun' assumes something similar to God waking up cranky one day and thinking to himself "You know what, just for the hell of it, I'm gonna wipe out an entire people just because.".

If we look at the story of the Amalekites, it's quite obvious that this isn't true.

1) When the Israelites left Egypt, the Amalekites, a nomadic people, systematically killed off those that "lagged behind" (Deut 25:17-19). Those killed were the sick, the elderly, and children.

2) They attacked the Israelites again at Rephidim (Exodus 17), while they camped during the Exodus.

3) They attacked, with Eglon, and ravaged them at every opportunity, destroying crops, animals, and everything else. (Judges 3, Judges 6)

This continued, from the time of Judges through Saul, for about 200-400 years.

Additionally, there were numerous times where God granted them opportunity to change their minds and, since they were descended from Esau, the Amalekites would have been more than aware of God's promises, etc. as they were part of His people.

Aside from all this, the Amalekites were still welcomed as immigrants during this time and treated with justice, fairness, and mercy as God decreed (Exodus 29).

So, it's easy to pick a passage and say that God is an "angry coward", but to do so ignores the entire story.

[darkstar3]

29. Maybe it was just because his nose burned?

Are you listing reasons why God would smite people, or why Isrealites might claim that God told them to smite people?

[trotsky]

30. Do you have any independent corroboration of any of that?

Or are you solely going on the text that the people who slaughtered the Amalekites wrote?

Just wondering.

[cleanhippie]

32. Hold on a sec, you are moving the goalposts...

1. Its not my theory.
2. I never stated he "did it for fun", that was not my original post.
3. My last post to you above, you need to reread the last line.

[Sal316]

34. It's not your theory, I stand corrected.

1. Its not my theory.

I stand corrected. It is not your theory, you simply agreed with it.

2. I never stated he "did it for fun", that was not my original post.

If you're referring to #7 as your original post, then yes you did.

"I mean, "some "illuminating" verses detailing the angry, genocidal God from the Old Testament that killed women and children for fun." is a factual statement."

3. My last post to you above, you need to reread the last line.

Which part are you emphasizing?

[laconicsax]

22. Yes or no: Is Jesus the son of God?

[trotsky]

23. I think Jesus was God's pet armadillo.

You lose so much if you stick to a strict interpretation of scripture. I feel sorry for literalists like Sal316.

[laconicsax]

25. Who knows?

Christianity can be interpreted as 100% true if it's all metaphor.

-Jesus didn't literally live, he metaphorically did.
-Jesus didn't literally fulfill the messianic prophecies, he metaphorically did.
-Jesus didn't literally die on the cross then rise three days later, he did so metaphorically, metaphorically fulfilling something he metaphorically said earlier.
-Jesus didn't literally die for humanity's literal sins, but metaphorically on both counts.
-Jesus didn't literally perform miracles, he metaphorically performed metaphorical miracles.
-Jesus wasn't literally the son of God, he was metaphorically the son of God and God isn't literally trinitarian, just metaphorically so.

The list goes on.

[Sal316]

27. Yes.

[laconicsax]

31. It's good you can finally admit to being a Biblical literalist.

Interesting that you look at scripture "through the same eyes as the anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-everything fundieloons."

[Sal316]

35. If believing in a central tenet of the Christian faith...

...makes one a "biblical literalist" (meaning one reads the entirety of scripture literally, including a 6 day creation, a distinction I, and others, have made repeatedly) then you might as well label every single Christian a 'literalist'.

Should suit your need to broad brush people of faith to justify your opinion of them.

[darkstar3]

36. You can't be so thick and obtuse that you missed his point by accident.

Try again, Sal, and tell us all how the Bible is all metaphor except for those parts where it's meant to be taken literally.

[cleanhippie]

24. No response? What gives?

We were having such a nice, reasonable conversation, and you seem to have disappeared. What gives?

reply #17 is where we left off. Feel free to continue...

[laconicsax]

26. I wouldn't expect a response from him.

He probably crawled back under his rock to wait for next time.

[LARED]

33. 'that killed women and children for fun'

Perhaps I missed it but where did you find that this was "for fun" in scripture?

[intaglio]

37. Well, remember to check the Skeptic's Annotated Bible

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[Renew Deal]

38. People are more engaged with God, but I also think they're less religious.

I haven't encountered "evangelical strangers spouting off."