Phone Me, Sinner

There has been much discussion on some websites about the new Catholic innovation, using the iPhone for confession.  

This notion seems ridiculous at first.  But, one can see it must be, at least in part, a response to the shortage of priests.  It must take a lot of time to listen to people ramble on. 

When you think about it, religion has seen technology upset “traditional” ways of worship since day one.  I wonder what people thought the first time they heard a preacher on the radio.  Did they think, “That is strange, trying to preach over this box.  Preaching is supposed to be done right there in front of people.”

Following the radio was, of course, both local church services and evangelists broadcasting on television.  Electric guitars and  high tech sound equipment are now common.  The internet and Facebook are part of today’s technology mix.

It’s fun to speculate about what might be the next tech apps.  The iPhone could be used in so many ways.  How about scanning in your tithe as you walk into church instead the flat period during the service when the collection plates are passed?  And maybe nonsingers could hold up their phones with prerecorded singing to participate during hymns.

It will be interesting to learn if more Catholics fessup their sins with the new innovation.  I think the Catholics should modernize thier views about sin to match the new technology. 

Their views are still back in the preradio days.

29 Responses

  1. Wanna B Sure

    Jon; Methinks you give way more credit to the Catholic Church than what is needed. This app is nothing more than a facilitator for contemplation of the “errors” (if that word is more comfortable for you) that one falls into daily. I know that you consider yourself pretty much a “free agent”, but you also contemplate Natural Law. We all know that the Hammurabi Code predated the Decalog, ( The Ten Commandments). We also know that his code contained much more strident obligations that aren’t contained in the Decalog. You also know that the first table of the Law contains only comands related to God. The rest deal with our behavior with our fellow man. Along with these, there is also the implied content of secular behavior. The ramifications of going against these have both sacred, and secular results. For instance; adultery. Another would be bearing false witness. The later deals with lying about,(intentionally or not), through commission or omission. In the secular world, “slander” would be used, and there are secular laws about this. When you go down I-29, and you see the speed limit , and you think “I can go 30 over” you’recontemplating on that . If you do speed, and get caught, your pay the penalty. Your criticism of self inflection is poorly reasoned, as you do the same thing, only on a different plain. The remainder of your “comments” are both cute, shallow, and sophomoric.

  2. PK

    Here’s a question that’s somewhat on topic since we’re dealing with ancient writings. Why does our recorded history only go back about 6-7 thousand years? If we supposedly evolved, at the earliest, 250,000 years ago, why did it take 243,000 years to develop written language? That doesn’t make much sense considering what we’ve done in a little over 6000 years. Our mental capacity and ability would have been the same, so why did it take so long to become technological. Even if it took 200,000 years to spread around the globe, creating isolated populations, there’s still 43,000 years for these groups to develop something. That’s a long time, we should be traveling the galaxy by now. The only explanation for the loss of knowledge would be a world-wide catastrophe, like a flood or something, that destroyed it all. But evolutionists like yourself refute such an occurrence because it would disrupt your current model. Perhaps we can blame it on a “primitive” mind that was preoccupied with surviving. Yeah that makes sense…..we haven’t been concerned about how we’re going to feed, cloth, house and protect ourselves this past 6000 years, so that must be it. What’s your take on ancient ancient history? Thanks.

    1. PK 5:02 I think what you are saying is that there is not paper with written words on it that has survived. We don’t know how or where they might have done their “writing”. There are drawing in caves that is much earlier. Could it not be that this was their written language? In my view, it is much more believable to conclude that early man developed as much written language as he needed, and not much more. Would not one assume he needed all his time working to stay alive. On the flood story, as I understand it, there is not enough water in the earth’s atmosphere to cover the entire earth. There would have had to been much more at that time. We have no explanation as to where it could have gone. Lots of societies have a flood story. I even heard one in South Dakota at an Indian Muesum near the Black Hills.

      1. Brad Campbell

        Jon…..the “flood” is probably the Black Sea filling as the Mediterranean spilled into it 7000 yrs ago.

        Some researchers say this is not the “biblical” flood but maybe it was.

  3. Wanna B Sure

    PK; You must be referring to “Monkey Law”. I think I’ve seen that at work at the zoo. The self examination isn’t pretty.

  4. PK

    Jon, I’m referring to technological advancement in general. Why did it take 240,000 years for man to begin the process of creating simple machines. It would be logical to assume, looking at the dynamic human mind, that it should have started right away. Even a so called “transition” species that we evolved from could have started the process. Looking at how fast technology has advanced the last 6000 years, why was there little to no advancement for the first 244,000 years of our species existence? Considering they had the same needs then as the needs that has driven our technology recently. Why isn’t our technology about 40x more advanced than it is now?
    There is much evidence for a universal flood. Growing earth theory, the universal chalk layer, fossilized trees through multiple strata, but that’s a different subject.
    What’s your take on the lack of human progression for the first 240,000 years, perhaps 494,000 years depending on the figure used, of human history? Was it the Monkey Law?

    1. Brad Campbell


      Maybe the timeline for human development took so long is that man was preoccupied with hunting for survival. As technology made sustaining life easier, maybe that opened up the human mind for technilogical advancement??

      Rome held onto its vast empire with the roads that the legions made and the wheat fields in Sicily. Ottoman Turkey held onto its vast empire with its administrative skills and Janissaries. When a piece of the foundation starts to crumble, the whole structure will fall. Is our foundation starting to crack today? Some say it is…..

      1. PK

        So we have one for Monkey Law. I find that’s a very weak explanation because haven’t we been occupied with those same survival needs for the past 6000 years too? That’s what’s driven our technology, to make things easier. Every society organizes itself into a system where the workload is shared with people having specialized fields. Why was the first 240,000 years different from the last 10,000?

        1. PK 2:53 “Every society organizes itself into a system where the workload is share with people having specialized fields.” PK, this is one statement I know is not true. To have specialization, a society needs to have trade. If there is some reason trade does not take place, there is not specialization. I get the impression you know a lot about some topics, but, if I might be so bold, you do not know a lot about economics.

          1. PK

            How often has some form of trade not taken place? Given the time frame, and looking at the history we do have, it’s only logical to assume there would have be this structuring of society long before 10,000 years ago. Freeing up time to invent and create.

          2. PK 4:59 People don’t trade when they fear each other or hate each other, as starters. Look, apartly we are having this odd conversation to “prove” that Noah’s big flood actually happened. Let’s return to my assertion, which is certainly open to challange, that there is not enough moisture in the earth’s atmosphere to flood the entire earth. I notice you just ignored that one. So, where did all that water come from? Then, where is it go? You are obviously a smart fellow and should have an explanation at the ready to solve this simple problem.

          3. Wanna B Sure

            Not enough water? proof? I don’t know for sure, but as with everyone on this subject, speculation is a current event. But– We can acknowlege that plate techtonics is viable, and that due to plate techtonics, mountains are formed, along with the deep trenches in the oceans. All the bends, curves, hills, valleys, and ripples are, or could be considered transitional. So to make it short- if one considers a consideration of pre-large earth crust movement, I am sure that there was more than enough water to cover. No, not flat earth, rather, a more smoothly surfaced round earth. Speculation? yes, possible? yes. Not enough water? not necessarily so. Shallow seas, no sea trenches, no mountains, very possible.

    2. PK 10:56 Those are big questions. I don’t know much about this so I can’t answer directly. I would wonder what we mean by techological progress. Might there have been progress in hunting and gathering techniques and socal structures that did not include tools? In my lifetime, groups of people have been discovered that had little or no contact with the outside world and had developed very little technological knowledge. Yet, other groups did. I suppose the explanation for this is complex. I wrote a couple of papers about the Incas in South America. They had an “advanced” society with enough resources so a few people did not have to grow food and could study the stars and other technical sorts of things. Then, they had overpopulation, the weather turned bad, and, the whole place fell apart–the “progress was lost for a long time. Perhaps there were thousands of events like this–I really don’t know.

      1. PK

        My whole point is that it makes more sense that a major catastrophic event took place that erased progress that logically should have been made for the past 100,000 years or more. But that type of event is refuted by the established scientific order because it would disrupt the evolutionary and geological model.

        1. Catastrophic events are absolutely not refuted by the established scientific order. Evolutionary and geologic models explicitly include concepts of both catastrophism and gradualism. There was a time when this wasn’t so but science is a self correcting pursuit, which also means it remains open to being wrong about what it thinks it knows today.

          This was touched on earlier, but the more we learn about the Roman Empire and more plain it becomes how devistating the descent into the dark ages was. It took a 1,000 years for the right set of circumstances to reassert themselves and for society to get back to where it was prior to the fall.

          Less worried about whether or why there were high societies prior to 10,000 years ago and more worried about the idea that what we do know of our own history as well as any speculation about prior societies lost to history say about what a knifes edge we’re living on.

    3. 1) There is no evidence for a universal flood. There is evidence for local floods in various places at various times.
      2) It would have been difficult for humans to create simple machines until they developed metallurgy.

          1. The cretaceous layer is universal. Cretaceous is Latin for chalky. It’s filled with marine fossils. There was also a mass extinction during this time, perhaps it was a flood that killed the dinosaurs. Just another way of looking at it.

  5. entech

    Jon, perhaps as an economist you may find that this idea has some resonance. Until agriculture became settled and the idea of property took hold there was no real need for anything to be written down, lots of verbal traditions and story tellers were enough. But, as some elements became dominant they found the need to record what was theirs, the first writing seems to have accounting.

    1. entech 3:02 Exactly. They acquired all the knowledge they needed verbally. They don’t travel more than a few miles in their entire lifetime so developing a written language would have lower their standard of living.

  6. PK

    You’re right, there’s only about enough to cover the present earth with about one inch of water. But, if you consider the growing earth theory, it would’ve been possible to have the entire earth covered rather deep. The mid-ocean ridge is a continuous crack in the ocean floor, where lava is constantly flowing from inside the earth to the ocean’s floor and cooling, creating new seabed. The US Navy dated samples of the ocean’s floor and found distinct bands of new rock around the rift, turning to older and older rock the further from it they went. If you take each band of the same age, and remove them one at a time starting with the newest, the earth shrinks and the continents start moving together. If you keep removing the bands, the continents will fit together perfectly, at least a lot closer than the current model, when the earth is about 1/2 the diameter.
    Now, all the water we see on the earth’s surface had to have come from somewhere. It says in Genesis that the “fountains of the great deep” were broken up, which would imply a crack of some sort, and the “windows of heaven were opened”. It’s possible that the earth had much more water in it’s atmosphere then, which could explain why people lived to be 6-7 hundred years old. So if the earth was 1/2 the diameter, all the water we see now would’ve covered everything, including mountains. As the earth expanded, the waters receded into the newly created ocean basins.
    That’s one possibility and there is other evidence of a worldwide flood. The universal chalk layer, huge coal deposits, fossilized trees protruding through multiple strata which would indicate a rapid layering of mud layers(strata). Bent strata and little to no erosion of the strata itself, but rather perfectly smooth transition lines between them.
    I don’t think a major flood can be ruled out.

      1. PK

        Let’s not even consider Noah’s flood. Growing earth theory, in my opinion, is a better theory than the accepted model. Not because it could explain the flood, but because of the evidence for this expansion.

Comments are closed.