E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
itunes-apple.com
Companies have sprouted up to create website and content management systems for religious organizations, like Digital Faith Community of Decatur, Ga. It has an app for that.
In April, some U.S. Catholics began receiving a warning in their bulletins when they showed up for Mass.
“The latest danger lies in a new communication device: social media (Myspace, Facebook, etc.),” said one version of the message. It convicted social media sites of a multitude of sins:
- Encouraging dishonesty: “Users can construct their public profile, and are encouraged to fake things.”
- Promoting “impurity”: “Initials known only to avid users are common, e.g., GYPO — get your pants off — which is, as you can imagine, one of the more 'innocent' ones out there.”
- Destroying “parental authority”: “Parents lose total control over children and teens, ignore totally what they do and say, who they talk to, and where they are going!”
- Fostering narcissism and isolation: “You make your own world and your own image to show off, for self-glorification, to feed vanity, and offer yourself an alternate reality.”
It concluded: “God entrusted our parents with the care of children for one particular purpose, and that is to teach them the way to know, love, and serve God in this life and save their souls hereafter. Everything leads us to think that Facebook fits poorly into this plan and was devised for a very different goal.”
It's not known how many parishes reprinted the message, which didn't come from the Catholic Church — it spread virally on the Internet after it was issued in March by the Society of St. Pius X, an ultra-traditional Catholic organization whose ministry isn't recognized as legitimate by the Vatican.
• Read the 'Facebook Effect' warning from the Society of St. Pius X
The message, in fact, runs counter to the church's approach to the Internet and social media, an arena in which it has been “one of the first innovators,” said Heidi Campbell, an associate professor of communication at Texas A&M University who specializes in the intersection of new media, religion and culture.
In fact, the Catholic Church has a long history of being an early adopter of new forms of media, going back to the 1920s, when Catholic priests pioneered radio evangelism, Campbell said.
At the same time, other religious institutions, especially traditional U.S. Protestant denominations, are still sorting through the challenges as well as the opportunities posed by the Internet, and particularly social media, according to church leaders and administrators.
“I think there's a lot of groups trying to figure it out,” said John Davidson, a fundraising and ministry consultant for churchextension.org, which supports the ministry of the Christian Church-Disciples of Christ.
By contrast, Campbell said, the Vatican — which fired up its first official website almost 20 years ago — has both a “very strong theological and technical infrastructure.” While it may be “counterintuitive from a hierarchical institution” like the Catholic Church, she said, “if new media will help them get the word out and do mission work, they'll do it.”
In June, Pope Benedict XVI — who has his own Facebook page app — issued “Truth, Proclamation and Authenticity of Life in the Digital Age,” a pontifical message that invited “Christians, confidently and with an informed and responsible creativity, to join the network of relationships which the digital era has made possible.”
“I always look at the Catholics first, even though you wouldn't expect that,” said Campbell, who is completing work on "Digital Religion: Understanding Religious Practice in New Media Worlds" for publication next year.
The limiting power of tradition
While most churches have websites and nearly every denomination has some form of social media outreach, few have been able to match the Catholics' progress online.
“You see common themes — there's a paradigm that still exists and lives in the 1950s,” Davidson said. “Status quo and tradition can be good things, but they really do limit the ability to adapt quickly.”
As members of Generation Y and the so-called Millennials — who grew up with technology — become more influential in various religions, they are increasingly talking to one another online, outside of the structures of traditional religious institutions, whose pastors “may not be present in the communication at all,” he said.
“Most of the mainline churches (are) unaware that it happens,” he said, because “they're uncomfortable with using that kind of technology.”
As a result, while a church may have a rudimentary web page, its leaders “may not have thought about search engine optimization or how all of the social media needs to point back to that page.”
Instead, they're always one web generation behind: “'Everyone's on Facebook, so we need to be on Facebook.' But they don't think about how they should use that.
“They push out (static) content, but then an issue comes up in the congregation and all of a sudden you see people fighting one another saying a lot of hurtful stuff online. As a leadership group, they don't have the ability to recognize that they need to be present in these conversations to dispel rumors, myths, to do some crisis management,” he said.
“Whether you're there or not, the conversation's happening,” he said.
'Many to many' vs. 'one to many'
LifeChurch.tv of Edmond, Okla., is definitely there, live-streaming services to 14 church locations in five states and to millions of other followers around the world, who interact with one another and with church staff in robust live chats.
A LifeChurch.tv producer explains how the church's state-of-the-art video operation is run.
In user discussions on LifeChurch sites, “you'll find a lot of things that are said good and bad about our church,” said the Rev. Bobby Gruenewald, a former technology entrepreneur who is the “innovation leader” at the organization, which was founded in 1995 by the Rev. Craig Groeschel and is affiliated with the Evangelical Covenant Church.
Overall, “the benefits are numerous,” Gruenewald said. “People are able to have a dialogue instead of just hearing a lecture.”
That's what makes LifeChurch work, but it's also what makes traditional church leaders uncomfortable.
Online communities are “more relational” than the traditional church model of communication, which is “viewed by a lot of churches as non-relational,” he said. That is, it seeks only to “connect people with content” through sermons and church bulletins.
That's because older leaders and more traditional churches view technology as an either/or — “as an amazing opportunity or an amazing evil,” he said.
“I think that's a total mistake,” said Gruenewald, whom Fast Company identified as one of its “100 Most Creative People in Business” this year. LifeChurch views technology as “something amoral that can be used for good and can be used for evil.”
The idea at LifeChurch, he said, is to use it for good to “connect people with people.”
Campbell, the Texas A&M professor, said that embracing that philosophy is a hallmark of effective religious communication online.
“In old media, it was a one-to-many communication system,” while the new media and digital culture is “a many-to-many form of communication,” she said.
But with that freedom comes what some religious institutions see as a loss of control.
“For religious communities that might want to constrain or have gatekeepers to their message, the Internet allows many people to bypass that gatekeeper,” Campbell said. While you can get your message out to exponentially more people, “You can't always monitor the message.”
Gruenewald acknowledged the challenge of figuring out “how do people filter and give credibility” to a cascade of religious information online, but he said that with “like anything that's new, this is a challenge with the Internet and technology in general.”
“It's only problematic if a church expects to control the conversation that's taking place about the church” — something “we don’t spend a lot of energy on,” he said.
By engaging widely online, “you have some context in which you can influence the conversation,” he said, echoing Davidson's point that whether you're involved or not, that conversation is going to happen regardless on Twitter or on Facebook.
“It can be a drawback,” he said, “but I think it's more of a reflection of the opportunity. ...
“If you define the platform, you can lead people to come and meet you there.”
Alex Johnson is a news and technology reporter for msnbc.com. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
Leave a Comment:
It's always a dicey proposition when 21st Century technology meets up with medieval superstition. It's not a comfortable mix.
Science and technology will always scare the crap out of Bronze Age superstitious theocrats. Most Christians still bemoan the fact that they can't burn witches or stone idolaters. Most Christians think that praying for rain is a good substitute for sound environmental science.
BLASPHEMY!!!! Indigo, you, my dear friend, need to do your research before bemoaning a religion or practice you know nothing about. If you want to talk about the atrocities these "witches" supposedly committed, think back about the atrocities the Catholic church and Christians in general committed against the Celtic people and against Native Americans. Do unto others as you shall have done unto yourself. So it is written in the Book of Genesis. Pagans say the same thing in a different way: "Harm none, lest ye harm be returned thrice upon ye." That is what Pagans call "The Rule of Three", which simply means any harm done to another is returned to the assailant three times as severe.
Christians are able to "justify" killing people based on the Bible. Murder is NEVER justified in Wicca.
My church has been using the internet age for years. It is a great way to administer to people who are disabled and can't get to the church by allowing them to strengthen their faith at the same time. It also allows for mothers who have screaming infants to be able to catch any part of the sermon when it is convenient for her and her baby. Please don't confuse what the Catholic Church is saying with Christians everywhere. As with the case of pornography, parents should always watch what comes into the home.
Ahh yes, the devil's primary concern - sexual education.
Its not needed,
The internet spreads enough hate, oppression, segregation, misinformation, and closed mindedness as is.
The internet is simply a tool. It is the Church that spreads hate, fear, and oppression.
Actually it is the atheists that do that. If you don't agree with them, then you are considered condemmed and a bigot. They don't like anyone who doesn't think like them, and they use hate, fear, and name-calling to intimidate you. It is starting to sound like the Nazi regime; but instead of the jews, its now the Christians that are to be blamed.
Moheeheeko, are you saying you do enough hate, oppression, segregation, misinformation, and close mindedness against religion to fill the entire Internet?
Ah personal attacks, that was fast.
For starters, no, im not an atheist as im sure you are assuming.
Organised religeon is the most destructive force in the world, always has always will be.
Look at any war, ANY WAR, and its roots will more than likely be in that somone thinks somone else is "worshiping wrong"
Uh, so you'd blame the civil war on religion? Religion is sooooo evil, they were wrong to start a war to free the black slaves! Religion doesn't start wars. If you look at most religions, they actually advocate peace. Christ was called the Prince of Peace. He teaches us to "turn the other cheek". Wars are started by fools who use the power of religious messages to their own ends. The people that start wars are evil, not religion itself.
"Uh, so you'd blame the civil war on religion?"
Becuase the debate over slavery being moral or not totally wasnt an argument over how to interpret the bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War#Religious_conflict_over_the_slavery_question
oh wait, it was.
And I never said Christ was evil, he was an amazing man and we should live by his example. The fact of the matter is that because people dont follow his teachings as well as we would hope led to people killing each other because they dont think they were "christ like enough" instead of just, as you say, turning the other cheek.
Of course you're both ignoring a still widely held position (with a lot of merit) that the American Civil War was only indirectly related to the slavery issue at all and that slavery was just the one (or many) State's rights that was chosen as "the reason" for that war. . .
Miker,
I was going to get to that, but felt it unneeded for the current discussion. The point that was made was that there were no religeous undertones to the civil war, and I adressed that point.
states' rights and taxes
@Mo: I know. I just wanted to throw that into the mix. I liked your closer, actually. Hit the nail on the head.
I've always found it a complete oxymoron that "religious" men declare war in the name of religion. It makes NO sense as religion in its purity is peaceful- and that goes for ALL religion.
Only when man decided to interpret the Word of God does it become violent. Only when man decides to force conversion on others does it become violent.
God never intended it to be this way. A war started or fought in the name of God is simply wrong.
Geek, you need to remember the danger when trying to interpret a voice you hear in your head. Maybe it's telling you to be kind to your fellow man. Maybe it's telling you they're devil worshipers and need to be destroyed to protect the purity of your religious beliefs. The fundamentals of a religion don't have to make a distinction between the two. Religious belief is obtained through faith in something that can't be proven. So, a religion that professes good has no objective measurement of correctness vs one that professes absurdity or evil. A devil worshiper that believes in human sacrifice is just as "correct" in his belief as the pope is because "correctness" is measured subjectively. Religion in its purity is not peaceful nor hateful. Religious belief is simply the acceptance of something (could be anything) without the ability to prove or disprove it through tests. Saying religion is peaceful would be like saying a knife is violent. The knife is only violent in the hands of the violent individual. It can be used to stab or to cut bread to feed to someone. Religion is only peaceful in a peaceful individual but violent in a violent person.
Currently, the trend (or fad) in many religions is to be peaceful. However, that trend was not always the case nor is it currently the case for various members practicing a religious belief. You often have this split in people involved with a religion because there is no objective measure for "correctness" of the religion. Correctness of a religion is based upon individual faith which isn't measurable or testable so objective or subjective measures of correctness, such as level of violence, are meaningless for someone with faith.
Finally, there's something in your argument you're missing. You say that "only when man decided to interpret the Word of God does it become violent". But, you're attempting to interpret the Word of God by stating that "God never intended for it to be this way". How do you know? You may believe you know because you have faith in a loving God that cares for all of his/her children. However, if you're belief system is centered around a vengeful god with a heaven and hell, then the violent version makes more sense. The person "cleansing the population of disbelievers" is, in his mind, simply saving the souls of those that may be corrupted by the disbeliever. So, fighting a war over it isn't all that bad to his mind because he's simply eliminating those going to burn in hell anyway but saving the Earth for the faithful.
This lack of objective measures in religion prevents you from being able negate a violent person's religious beliefs that tell them to kill the non-believer. You can only put your subjective measures of the religion forward (in this case, peace). But, subjective measures are pointless when dealing with people of different mindsets because they will have different weightings. This peaceful measure is pointless to a subscriber to a violent form of a religion because their weighting for say... burning the pagans... is much higher than yours.
To put Doggysaywhat's words in layman's terms, what's considered morally acceptable to one person may be complete heresy to another. No two human beings are alike. In the New Testament, it speaks of King Nimrod and the Tower of Babel. King Nimrod wanted to organize all human beings under one all-encompassing roof and use the Tower of Babel to declare war on God, but God sent a messenger down to break up the organized group. The Tower was made of brick and mortar. King Nimrod and the Tower of Babel were not real, they are actually symbols. The tower of Babel, being made of bricks, was used to describe King Nimrod's idea that we should all be exactly alike. Each one of us should be exactly like everyone else. Bricks are exactly like all other bricks. You cannot usually tell the difference, nor can you tell which part of a building a brick came from. King Nimrod himself was the false idol, the Antichrist. And the Mortar holding all the bricks together? That was Materialism. Every great leader throughout history has used Materialism to unite his people under one all-encompassing roof. God actually wants His people to be like stones. Stones are unique. No two stones are alike, each stone has its own story to tell, and you can often tell where a stone has been and what it has been through simply by looking at it. That is God's intention, for us all to be different, as those differences are what make us who we are. Those differences are God's way of testing our faith. If we cannot accept those differences and learn to accept our fellow man as our brother regardless of his differences, it is considered a sin in God's eyes.
But there in lies the problem- interpretation. God has made it pretty clear that He wants a world of peace. So I would think that if a person "hears" voices or interprets passages of scripture- and comes to the conclusion that war is on the menu- then he/she is flat out wrong. The scriptures are full of ideas that causes one to think- but none of them lead a sane person to think "Well of course! That means I should declare WAR!!"
Dog- you said exactly as I was thinking- good point. A knife is sharp and is a tool- but not dangerous. A person weilding the knife can be dangerous and at that point the knife stops being a tool and becomes a weapon. Religion is the same way. But religion if studied is easily seen as peaceful- not divisive. The other problem I see is that the scriptures were written by man as a reference & record of the times they lived in and as a witness to the life they led. As we know- man is imperfect- so it stands to reason that the scriptures could be imperfect.
We are all different and think as such- but if man understood the goal of God- there wouldn't be the turmoil we see every day in the world. I look at it as a lack of understanding vs a "thought of understanding". Most will admit they don't know very much- and than there are those that think they know it all. That's where it gets sideways. Those that think they know more are the ones that generally get into deep water trying to "educate" everyone else.
Geek, the problem is that this interpretation of a peaceful god as opposed to a violent one can't be proven or disproven. So, you have no objective measure to state that God wants people to be peaceful as opposed to being warlike or violent. Therefore any conclusion you come to regarding "God's plan" are subjective and someone else will come to a different conclusion based upon their belief structure. If their belief structure tends more towards violence or war, then a god that accepts that behavior or encourages it is perfectly sensible to them. You can't really call an interpretation flat out wrong because you don't have objective measures of correctness. You only have subjective measures based upon your personality type. You can take passages in just about any holy book and interpret them to mean God is peaceful, God is vengeful, God is loving, God is hateful, etc. But, you can't measure the correctness of any of these interpretations through anything other then subjective means.
If God had made it clear that he wants a world of peace, why do many humans have a violent nature? If we all had a peaceful nature, one could possibly take that as proper measure of a divine creators plan. You also can't say that termoil we see each day isn't part of God's plan or that there even is a God's plan because you have no way to objectively test which one is correct.
I suppose there's a reason "Nimrod" became an epithet for someone of limited intelligence. . .
My question is to Walmart..."Why is it that other extremely popular events, such as Disney World, can manage to avoid such incidents?" Answer: "Because they don't prey on the mentality of being left out". As I stand in line for the most popular rides at Disney World, I am told how long my wait will be...and I can choose to wait or not...but one thing is for sure...if I wait, in line, and don't pepper spray or walk over a man having a heart attack...I'm going to get on the ride. Do the math Walmart...if you only have x-number of super deals...those that are "at-cost"...and the line outside is wrapped around your building in the middle of the night...clearly indicating they are not there to buy a gallon of milk for the morning, but are there because they are hoping to get one of the "good buys". What person or company in their right mind can't figure out that there is a riot about to happen? I say, you were negligent. You don't have to go back too far in history to see that there will always be a few who will take extreme measures to get what they consider their "fair share"...such as the gas crisis in the 70's. But not to worry...Walmart is self-insured...has billions of dollars stacked up against the common Joe's meager pension money...and the loss of his/her life is considered an unfortunate incident, but rare in life's overall picture. Why does, "Collateral Damage" come to mind...? Shame on you Walmart and all businesses that prey on the weaknesses of the common people. And do not bother to tell us how much money you return to the lcoal community in the way of donations...it is of little solice to the family who must carry the burden of the financial loss due to injury or worse, death, of a loved one, because you choose to allow a "Free-for-All" entry into your stores instead of having some form of order. I trust that Walmart is prepared for the day when these masses mob Walmart for food because they are hungry and they manage to forget to pay on their way out. I suspect Walmart will spend vast amounts of their profits to track down the culprits of such a dastardly deed...but just remember, in that day...in their minds...Walmart is simply, "Collateral Damage" to the greater need...survival.
The internet and social media are tools, nothing more. When you look at the good they do, such as raising awareness of chronic illnesses, missing kids, families in distress, etc, they can be a very good tool. I would suggest that the only way a social media tool can be evil is if the person had the predisposition to do evil in the FIRST place. Social media doesn't make you a liar, you'd have to be one to begin with!
The Catholic Church's assessments:
Internet and social media bring information, technology and people together. This spreading of ideas makes more people realize the BS of religion through facts and science and hence = evil sin.
Brainwashing people into submission and tithe, all the while covering up child sex abuses = god's way
I am not Catholic, so I have no idea what goes on in the Catholic Church. In protestant churches however, people perform background checks on all teachers who are to teach Sunday School. They care about your children as it is how it is supposed to be. And just for the record all the tithes that are collected not only help the church's finances, but also goes to helping the poor pay their bills and so on. When was the last time you saw an atheist willing to give up 10% of his salary for the good of others?
And no, christians don't do it for a tax break.....
So only xtians give to charity ??? BS
Not everybody lies on social networking - the truth and honesty come alive/exposed on social networks. If you were liars and schemers before you got into social networking, you will be liars and schemers using social networking. And I am a member of LifeChurch and it is a totally wonderful place to find God's love, understanding, and people who truly do want to make a difference in the world. Craig is an amazing speaker and God works through him every week to open the hearts of many. And this is what is really needed today in this world that has become so evil. Don't judge the church until you have investigated it. Join us most anytime during the day or night,k any day of the week on the internet OR join us at the physical campuses - it's your choice.
Honestly, I grew up in the Christian church, but left as a teenager because I grew tired of the religious intolerance and constant discrimination that the Christian church has become known for. All the Christians and Catholics I met were quick to issue eternal damnation or were quick to try to "save your soul" if you did not believe the same way they did or behaved the same way they did. I don't see the world the same way as most Christians, and I am often shunned because of it. That religious intolerance was why I left the Church and pursued my own path in life as a solitary practitioner. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America gives us the right to Freedom of Religion, and that means ANY religion. That constitutional right to Freedom of Religion grants us the right to practice whatever religion we want. If I want to practice Paganism or Satanism, or if I want to practice Shamanism, that is my right under the US Constitution and nobody can tell me otherwise without infringing on my first-amendment rights. If I don't want to practice any religion at all, that's also my right under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
I actually like hearing opposing or differing viewpoints. In my eyes, the world would be a very boring and dull place if everyone believed and behaved the same way as everyone else. These differences we have as individuals, as humans, are what make life on this planet so interesting. I am often saddened and sickened when I see people being discriminated against solely because of their differences. It makes me glad I learned to respect, honor, and learn from those differences. It makes me glad I am who I am today because I learned from the differences of my fellow man.
Thats all we need, the bible thumping jeebus freaks on the internet.
Don't forget to add people like yourself to that list.
They are already here. Check out the science articles and you will quickly notice numerous religious nut nuts comments.
Jesus loves you.
Perhaps is because Christians aren't going to take you trashing them any longer. Too many christians have not been as bold as they should have been and more are now seeing the internet as a way to reach more people. No longer will atheists be able to say that christians are uninformed about current events, because using that is no longer an excuse for your bashing.
So get over yourselves, because we are moving in.
Moheeheeko, PLEASE read history or refrain from making comments that are patently false. While religion has contributed to a number of wars, your assertion that ANY war was caused because someone was worshiping wrong is so completely wrong that you should never have made that statement. Please stop echoing Internet memes and actually do some research. Further, while religion has caused problems, it is not the most destructive force in the world. Never has been, never will be. There are a great number of other contenders for that honor: greed, avarice, lust (I am not Catholic, but those three will give you a good start on the things that HAVE caused more wars and actually ARE the most destructive forces in the world).
Are you really necessary?
In people's rush to criticize, they fail to realize just how destructive these social media sites can be.
Just a quick perusal of recent news shows instances of people being prosecuted for actions taken online.
The internet and social media sites can be a good thing. Like anything else, they can be a nightmare in
the wrong hands. Here's what I tell people: don't do, write, or show anything online that you would be
embarrassed to see become public knowledge. There is no privacy on the internet these days.
Post an article having to deal with religion and just watch out for the Satanist to come crawling out of the shallow end of the gene pool.
Post an article in the science section and watch all the religious nut nuts try and disclaim it. mr shallow pooler.
-
Every science article I've ever read on MSNBC has been filled with athiest attacking, and belittling religion without any cause except hate. Never once have I seen a Christian go on their and try to disclaim it unless someone was first making fun of their religion.
I have yet to meet a Christian or any other monotheistic believer who is tolerant of differing beliefs. Every Christian and Catholic I end up meeting wants to "save my soul" because I don't practice Christianity. This religious intolerance is why I left the Church and pursued another path in life.
If you truly had been a christian then it wouldn't matter how intolerant other Christians were. The priority of Christianity is your relationship with god, not other people, although your relationships with other people do reflect your relationship with god. If other christians chose to nag at you instead of setting an example (like Jesus did) then as a Christian it would be your job to acknowledge but mostly ignore them and try to follow Jesus the best way you knew how. Their are plenty of liberal non denominational churches around. I go to one. If you let other people stand in the way of your relationship with god, you never really believed in him in the first place.
I could say the same thing about you too. I wonder do atheists really see themselves? They say they are tolerant of others beliefs, but they are the first to attack christians in the process. Seems to me, they are not as enlightened as they seem to think.
Wars have been started over many things, religion only being one. Religion was not a primary reason in wars fostered by communism, nor by imperialism.
It might also be pointed out that unlike other religions, Islam has institutionalized the concept of war, making it integral to their doctrine.
Actually I'm pretty sure that most wars have been about territory and resources. Religion has been used as a tool to "rile up the masses" but most root causes are property and resource claims. Religion simply makes it easier to accept an atrocity by believing it was God's will thereby negating any personal responsibility while enjoying the use of that property or resource later. I should note that I'm using liberal term for resource. Could mean natural resource, land resource, technology resource etc. Basically something that gives you a competitive advantage over those you see as a rival.
The same way you use the scientific journals as the "bible" only to find later that your scientific research has changed to more of what God really says?
Encouraging dishonesty, promoting impurity, destroying parental authority and fostering narcissim and isolation? Sounds like the very thing pedophile catholic priests do to children every day. This church is obviously delusional.
Newsflash Catholic church: Dishonesty, promoting sin, destroying parental authority and fostering narcissism all existed BEFORE social media was on the internet. It's called "Television". Also people isolating themselves was happening before the internet because it's just easier than dealing with a-holes and stupid people all day long.
Basically you are attacking a symptom of a problem and not the disease itself. I find this is the philosophy of most religious institutions nowadays.
I wonder how many American churches, priests and nuns have their own facebook page and use them to connect to church goers.
This whole article makes me think of a pastor who attacked pokemon and churches who wanted Harry Potter on the banned book list.
HE'S EVERYWHERE! Now even online, what wiil they think of next. We already have FaceBook for online confession. EGAD, an online wafer!
Most Christians still bemoan the fact that they can't burn witches or stone idolaters.
Yeah, that's always a big topic of discussion after services on Sunday at my church. We can't wait until we turn things around and get back to doing what God intends us to do. /sarcasm
I've been in that situation with internet and our church -- mention internet in Bible studyor something posted on internet and most people freeze up. They'll use e-mail to communicate with each other or post some function coming up, but anything else -- Nope. I've bookmarked hundreds of items on Biblical History -- forget it, they're not interested enough to learn. So I just ignore them and go my way ... # # #
Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and those other monotheistic religions all have one thing in common, and that is they reek of religious intolerance. From day 1, they are indoctrinated to believe their religion is the only true religion and that everything else is worshiping a false idol. This is one of the more common causes of wars, and has been since monotheism became the primary focus. Religious intolerance itself is a sin in God's eyes, as God believes we are all His children and should be treated as equals. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, Hinduism, Buddhism...It doesn't matter what religion you practice. In the end, the deity you worship is the same deity the other religions worship, but each religion has their own name and interpretation of the supreme deity.
For those Christians/Catholics in here who have Celtic lineage, you would be wise to study up on your Celtic roots, as the Celtic people practiced Paganism, not Christianity. For those of you with Native American lineage, again, study up on your roots, because your ancestors had polytheistic beliefs, not monotheistic beliefs.
Also, here is something all you monotheistic believers should know about Paganism:
No, we don't eat babies. No, you won't see us with your cat. No, we don't worship the Devil (Pagans don't believe in the devil or Hell). No, we don't put hexes on people. No, we don't practice Necromancy or Black Magic. Our rituals and magic are the same as your prayers. We do not discriminate. We are not prejudicial. We love everyone as if they were our brothers and sisters. We are tree-huggers. We are friends. We are neighbors. We are helpers. We are givers. We are loyal. We are Pagans. We are many. We are proud.
Also, just an FYI: There is a reason why Faith Healing was never accepted as an official form of medicine - because it never works. The herbal remedies and psychotherapy that every polytheistic society used did work and eventually led to the development of commercialized medicine.
About 80 million Chinese Christians would disagree with you about that "faith healing" bit from their own experience.
Have you never heard of St. Patricks day? ( And no, it doesn't mean a day for just wearing green). It was meant to turn their back on their druidism thanks to St. Patrick.
Are you saying that those whose lineage contained polytheistic beliefs are somehow excluded? Not according to God. Read the story of Ruth in the bible. Ruth turned her back on that kind of religion and because of that she was included in the lineage of Christ. From Ruth 1:16:
Then why do all the fundy organizations have websites?
Tera, the internet is just another way for those with power to indoctrinate the masses into submitting to their every beck and call. That is the way I see it.
Although the churches have been active on the internet, it is the same internet that poses the biggest challenge to religion. Information is available at your tool tips. It's no longer easy to isolate people from reality, and defend the bronze age garbage of religion as something sacred. While the stupid and deluded flock may still submit to religion, the numerous fence sitters, who are smart and have genuine curiosity to know what is true, are bound to find scientific information on the internet and break away from religious dogma. I think the internet is the post powerful tool helping the slow rise of non-religion in America.
It also makes it easy for us Christians to tell the world when you atheists are lying. No longer can you say that we are in the bronze age; your theories as well, are now put on display for testing.
Unhappy, you may not be in the "bronze age" but your mind and the minds of all "christians" is, believing in that book of fairy tales.
Its bad enough having to see mentally disabled religious nuts on TV, let alone on the internet too. Scoping out some news article about science discoveries or space discoveries and the religious fruit loops have left their baskets to comment.
Boo Hoo..... spoken like a true atheist who can't defend their beliefs.
Jesus Loves you
If God is real, then why do people go hungry?
Why doesn't everyone have a roof over thier head, or access to clean water?
Does God not care? If He does, then why is this happening.
Although, I have never met God, nor has He been disproved... so I have to say I am an Agiostic :P
As a Christian, I have asked those questions myself. The only answer I have ever heard that makes sense was this..... we are broken and lost people who are in need of a Savior to fill the hole in our lives. When Adam and Eve were in the garden they had everything they needed. Until one day Eve was deceived and that perfect world (and it was perfect b/c they had a deep and intimate relationship with God and the Father their Creator) was shattered and that relationship was broken.... We are in need of a Savior....that is why THIS world is horrible..... But there is a hope.... Jesus Christ died on the cross for each and every one of us (whether you believe this or not....I'm not here to argue or debate) because He loves us and wants us to draw closer to Him. I hope you find the answers and the peace you are looking for.... You will be in my prayers....
www.Mormon.org, , www.LDS.ORG lots of answers here.
Have fun finding peace and answers.
All this name calling. This group or that group are Nazis. NSDAP. Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party. This was a German Nationalist party. Socialist and Workers was included to counter their competition, the Communists. Whereas the Communists doctrine was based upon class warfare, the Nazi doctrine was based upon race warfare. Hitler was able to convince all Germans that their enemy was not another class but Jews. Hilter was baptized a Catholic as was most of his henchmen. In fact, Hitler became godfather to Goring's children. Hitler believed that he was appointed by God to lead the German people. The Catholic Church supported Hitler and the Nazis and made an agreement with Hitler that pledged to back him as long as he allowed the Church to retain its property in Germany. Hitler was therefore not an Atheist. There were Nazis in the U.S. prior to WWII. This was the American Bund. They were people of German ancestry that backed Hitler and insisted on speaking German and lived in German culture. At the time 3 million Americans spoke German. Many lived in the state of Texas and many in Texas still speak German and are members of German cultural groups and clubs. They are not Nazis. Realistically, you could only be a Nazi if you were German. Neo-Nazis around the world, like in the U.S., can never be real Nazis since they are Americans and not Germans. Does this clear things up a bit for all of you name callers?
If the first evangelists of the (catholic) Church were alive today, (meaning Saints Peter & Paul) I think they'd see the advent of the Internet as a good thing--another way that they'd be able to reach people w/the Word, & that they'd be advocating the use of the World Wide Web for the good of the user--that is, do not use the Internet to commit sin/evil. If you would not commit a sin without the Internet, don't think about doing it WITH it, either.
www.Mormon.org, , www.LDS.ORG yup theres another one who has embraced the technology.
Stay away from mormon anything....
Religions (Christianity in particular), are based on gnostic mythology; which are then based on astrology; which are then based on astronomy... an invention to control man by implicating punishment, as early as the horrendous 12th century Inquisition... instead of researching when is the endtime, one should engross in studying ancient histories to know Jesus Christ (and all his stories) as evolved imitation of an ancient Egyptian sun-god..
Jesus loves you. :)