(REL) Evangelical Group warns that blogging is un-christian

[SirFozzie]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

http://www.thercg.org/youth/articles/0403-bagy.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/10/god_blog/

I'm laughing my ass off here.

Edit: Made my target clearer in the title, I did not mean to tar ALL evangelicals with the brush in this thread, just this one fringe group

[SirFozzie]

choice quotes:

Blogging has become a socially accepted practice—just as are dating seriously too young, underage drinking and general misbehaving. But just because someone else “jumps off the cliff” does not mean you should do the same.

and quoting scripture

“He that has knowledge spares his words: and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit. Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is counted wise: and he that shuts his lips is esteemed a man of understanding” (Prov. 17:27-28).

Idle words can make you appear foolish. How do you think God feels about the mindless blogging that is occurring? Do you believe His Word? Notice how God cares about the words He wrote: “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times” (Psa. 12:6).

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


I'm laughing my ass off here.

..

[SirFozzie]

More "Shut up and drink the Kool-Aid"

The Internet—and more specifically blogs—has enabled everyone to have a voice on any matter. Now everyone’s thoughts are “published” for all to see. Whether or not it is effective, as soon as something is posted the person has a larger voice. It often makes the blogger feel good or makes him feel as if his opinion counts—when it is mostly mindless blather!

In other words, "Shut up you stupid fucks"

or..

This has grown so out of control it is routine for a person to start a daily blog entry with a single word that details his or her mood. A blog entry will start: “Current mood: ____” The level of shallowness and emotional immaturity this represents is astonishing! In the grand scheme of things, why would the world at large care?

People naturally want to make a mark in this world; they want to make a difference, and many believe blogs will allow them to do this. However, most blogs, especially by teenagers, serve as nothing more than public diaries. (Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with a personal diary, as long as it is kept private.) Although certain professional weblogs can make a positive difference within some elements of society, teen blogging does not.

Stop and consider. The biggest mark you will ever make is to build God’s character and be born into the God Family. Blogging will not help you achieve this.

In other words, if you're not out there actively protelyzing and converting others to the one true Faith every moment of your life, you're useless.

Unbelievable.

[st.cronin]

Is this really necessary?

[CraigSca]

/agreed, St. Cronin.

[SirFozzie]

no, but then again, what is?

[st.cronin]

I never thought of SirFozzie as a bigoted asshat.

[Tigercat]

I think God is just getting too lazy to read the whole internet. With all the crap thats out there, monitoring the whole universe is a pretty sucky job.

[SirFozzie]

I'm bigoted against stupidity, nothing more.

[Groundhog]

I actually think it is neccessary. I think when any institution tries to silent people, or discourage people expressing their opinions, it deserves to be highlighted.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I actually think it is neccessary. I think when any institution tries to silent people, or discourage people expressing their opinions, it deserves to be highlighted.

Also when a belief system and it's adherents is mocked and abused for no good reason...

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Also when a belief system and it's adherents is mocked and abused for no good reason...

Yeah sure, I'm down for that too, though I don't think it applies in this case.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Also when a belief system and it's adherents is mocked and abused for no good reason...

Please, I'm not mocking the Christian belief system. I'm mocking one smaller section of it and it's refusal to think that you know, things have changed since they were growing up, and the self-righteous twaddle that they throw out.

Apparently, Blogging is evil because it doesn't bring more folks to God..

I mean, honestly, and with a straight face they compared blogging to underage drinking, dating too heavily when young and other "general misbehavior".

It then basically devolved into an attack on those who post saying that teenagers should shut up, that they're nobodies, and went from there.

[SirFozzie]

Dola: I'm sure that the same folks would say posting on a Sports Text Sim message board is un-Christian, because of the very same things.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Please, I'm not mocking the Christian belief system.

You can say that all you want, but your tone in post #4 belies that.

[SirFozzie]

if that offended you, I apologize, especially for the Kool Aid line. But that is honestly the viewpoint I'm getting from the article.

[Groundhog]

I think you're being too sensitive St. Cronin. No where - not even post 4 - is Foz criticizing the Christian belief as a whole. He is making fun of the views of one Christian, who's particular view I would in no way consider typical of most Christians, and I'm sure Foz doesn't believe that either.

[SirFozzie]

dola: Rather then edit, let me add to the post:

I based my comments on the dismissive nature of the article, that teens should shut up and not be heard from..

...mindless twaddle...
..In the grand scheme of things, why would the world at large care?..
..If you blog, are you sure you do not partially enjoy it because your carnal nature is inclined toward vanity?...
...summarizes the mindless, mundane nonsense found on weblogs...
...The contents of blogs can often best be described as trash and the expression of shallowness. What is deemed as a higher level of communication is simply a mindless form of entertainment....

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I think you're being too sensitive St. Cronin. No where - not even post 4 - is Foz criticizing the Christian belief as a whole. He is making fun of the views of one Christian, who's particular view I would in no way consider typical of most Christians, and I'm sure Foz doesn't believe that either.

Thank you, Groundhog, for saying it better then I could.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I think you're being too sensitive St. Cronin.

Possibly.

Originally Posted by Groundhog

No where - not even post 4 - is Foz criticizing the Christian belief as a whole. He is making fun of the views of one Christian, who's particular view I would in no way consider typical of most Christians, and I'm sure Foz doesn't believe that either.

There is the thread title, which instead of reading "Evangelicals" (which is how I describe myself), he could have put "Church of God".

And post 4 really puts my teeth on edge - possibly I am oversensitive, but I really think it was unnecessary.

[EagleFan]

I must agree with SirFozzie on this one. He's not mocking an entire religion but rather an odd "belief" held by some "radicals". Though these radicals are a little easier to take as they aren't strapping bombs on and blowing up people.

[MrBigglesworth]

Actually, I agree with st.cronin in that the thread title looks to be directed at Evangelicals, when it is actually just a single asshat, or single asshat small Church.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I based my comments on the dismissive nature of the article, that teens should shut up and not be heard from..

...mindless twaddle...
..In the grand scheme of things, why would the world at large care?..
..If you blog, are you sure you do not partially enjoy it because your carnal nature is inclined toward vanity?...
...summarizes the mindless, mundane nonsense found on weblogs...
...The contents of blogs can often best be described as trash and the expression of shallowness. What is deemed as a higher level of communication is simply a mindless form of entertainment....

Although I don't really find the deep religio-spiritual concern about the subject that the original author does, just reading those snippets (the ones quoted above), I'm really having a hard time finding fault with those particular criticisms. Difference being, I guess, is that I wouldn't begin to limit those observations to teenagers.

-- Most of the crap on blogs IS mindless twaddle.
-- In the grand scheme of things the world at large DOESN'T care.
-- Most of the blogs I've encountered ARE the product of self-absorbed vanity.
-- Most of the stuff in blogs IS "mindless, mundane nonsense".
-- Most blog content COULD reasonably be described as "trash" and DOES display a significant degree of "shallowness".
-- Finally, most of it DOES appear to be a "mindless form of entertainment".

Surely Fozzie, surely you aren't trying to argue those individual points & instead are either disturbed by the conclusion the writer draws and/or by the emphasis he/she placed on the role of blogs for teens.

[Ajaxab]

I can agree with St.Cronin to an extent. To stereotype all evangelicals with such a broad brush is unfair. A brief glance at the article on IM from the same Ambassador Youth site would reveal that they want people to do everything they can to keep from IM'ing on the Sabbath. To imply that all evangelicals would occupy this position is ridiculous.

That being said, this particle group's extremes is worthy of being critiqued by the evangelical and non-evangelical alike. JiMG points are the kind of critique that is worthy of discussion.

[Warhammer]

My only problem is this means that journals are un-Christian. Would they agree with that?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

-- Most of the crap on blogs IS mindless twaddle.
-- In the grand scheme of things the world at large DOESN'T care.
-- Most of the blogs I've encountered ARE the product of self-absorbed vanity.
-- Most of the stuff in blogs IS "mindless, mundane nonsense".
-- Most blog content COULD reasonably be described as "trash" and DOES display a significant degree of "shallowness".
-- Finally, most of it DOES appear to be a "mindless form of entertainment".

Surely Fozzie, surely you aren't trying to argue those individual points & instead are either disturbed by the conclusion the writer draws and/or by the emphasis he/she placed on the role of blogs for teens.

You could easily replace "blogs" in all your points with anything from "television shows", "video games", "pop music", or whatever you want and it still works.

Foz didn't defend blogs at all, he just pointed out that condemning them as un-Christian is hilarious. If something being a waste of time or pointless is un-Christian, then I guess the majority of hobbies for all of us are un-Christian.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Surely Fozzie, surely you aren't trying to argue those individual points & instead are either disturbed by the conclusion the writer draws and/or by the emphasis he/she placed on the role of blogs for teens.

Yah, I know, most of the stuff out there is, as the French say, Ghar-Bagge.. but I've also seen teens write down things in a blog that were bothering them that they could NEVER say in person, that in at least one case I know of resulted in someone getting help for their problems before they could do harm to themselves or someone else.

It's just the attitude that if you're not doing something to bring people to God at every single moment of your life, if you take a moment out to just be a.. well I deleted the expletive because it was sacreligious, but just a TEENAGER, then you're denying God.. it pisses me off that someone could be so narrowminded and dismissive of the next generation.

The best way to get teenagers to find God is not to deny that there's anything outside God, it's not to tell them that if they don't believe EXACTLY as these folks do that they're wrong/stupid/going to hell, is to encourage them to question things, and then to find answers.

[WVUFAN]

I love how much of this article used Proverbs 17:27-28 is used to justify how blogging is un-christian, when the author is misunderstanding what it's saying.

I agree with Fonzie -- he isn't ridiculing Christians, he's ridiculing THOSE Christians. And they deserve it.

[WVUFAN]

dola --

It's interesting to note that the church that published this "Blogging in un-Christian" article saw fit to justify it -- on a blog.

[Dutch]

I think when any institution tries to silent people, or discourage people expressing their opinions, it deserves to be highlighted.

I didn't read the article, but for the purpose of this thread, does the source mention anything these evangelicals (or any for that matter) ever do that's not stupid (in this story or others)? Or are those types of stories generally silenced, discouraged and not worthy of being highlighted?

If nothing is being surpressed, I think it's funny as hell.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I didn't read the article, but for the purpose of this thread, does the source mention anything these evangelicals (or any for that matter) ever do that's not stupid (in this story or others)? Or are those types of stories generally silenced, discouraged and not worthy of being highlighted?

If nothing is being surpressed, I think it's funny as hell.

Do those type of stories even exist? We're not talking every single stupid things just an egregious one; these evangelicals would have to have performed a notable non stupid deed for it to be applicable.

Now, we can argue that in general, not this specific instance, that the bad stories get greater press than good ones and that's legitimate but to boil it down to this level you'd have to show me a story of these evangelicals saving a baby in a well or something being repressed before the argument would apply.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Do those type of stories even exist? We're not talking every single stupid things just an egregious one; these evangelicals would have to have performed a notable non stupid deed for it to be applicable.

Now, we can argue that in general, not this specific instance, that the bad stories get greater press than good ones and that's legitimate but to boil it down to this level you'd have to show me a story of these evangelicals saving a baby in a well or something being repressed before the argument would apply.

Christian groups don't go around pulling kids out of burning buildings like superhero's, but they do raise money and volunteer their time to help people in need. That seems to be lost on those who mock them because of the press they do get, wouldn't you think?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Christian groups don't go around pulling kids out of burning buildings like superhero's, but they do raise money and volunteer their time to help people in need. That seems to be lost on those who mock them because of the press they do get, wouldn't you think?

It has to do with context and when the press reports story A they often leave off story B. In this case, an article which talks about them helping people in need won't mention that they are trying to keep their teens silent and mentally close minded. It's not what the story is about and would be inappropriate. I don't take it as anything being suppressed just irrelevant.

It's also human nature. Like my old boss used to say,
"one 'oh shit' wipes out a thousand 'atta boys'" That's how things work and we can pretty much agree that for the most part this sucks.

So, the negative story is going to have a longer shelf life and be more prominant especially when the story, as this one is, is reinforcing a stereotypical view.

This story disturbs me because the idea of keeping people from thinking does disturb me, especially with the next generation and it has zero to do with religion. I've posted that one of my most hated quotes is "Ours is not to reason why, ours is just to do or die."

It has nothing to do with religion but it's what this story is about too but this story even more explicitely suggests the addendum "because no one really cares what you think anyway." I'm going to have a negative reaction to it.

Post four seems to be pretty much saying what I'm saying until the last comment.

In other words, if you're not out there actively protelyzing and converting others to the one true Faith every moment of your life, you're useless.

I don't get this from the passage he's quoting which says

Stop and consider. The biggest mark you will ever make is to build God’s character and be born into the God Family. Blogging will not help you achieve this.

which says nothing about protelyzing and converting others but more to getting your own life in order or more specifically their after life which is after all what they're about.

Where they miss the bus is that as was posted here, not every action we do every day is about getting our after lives in order even if arguably they should be. Sometimes we need to find our place in the current life before we can honestly approach anything else.

I didn't read the original either but it's notable that the only reasons I see posted here against blogging as that the persons opinion really doesn't count and I"m not exactly mad but profoundly sad that people who are at an age where they're struggling to discover their own place in this world are being told that they don't matter. I don't have a problem feeling good about the good things that this group does and feeling horrid about the bad.

I don't believe all evangelicals believe this but I do tend to hold all members of a group responsible if they silently accept the actions of it's fringe vocal minority. The lack of opposition speaks silently of an acceptance and I can't accept that. I have no clue if it applies here though so for me, this article doesn't really rise to this level.

Note, about the last paragraph I think it's especially valid in these times of greater mass communications. There are splinter groups that can be tailor made to fit their own agendas so there's no reason to stay with a group which has members that do things to offend you. You can just find another group, create your own or heck, join no group at all.

Of course, the more you silence peoples voices the less they are aware that they can do this..

[CraigSca]

My issue is, despite SirFozzies assertions, the title states "EVANGELICALS warn that blogging is un-christian". As an evangelical Christian, I take exception to this title, because whoever this guy or group is, they don't speak for me.

I agree wholeheartedly with JimGa's statements - blogging in general is an egotistical medium - and there is (miniscule) danger in it. I suppose someone, somewhere could begin to feel a little too important based on the number of hits their particular blog gets.

Anyway - the part that irritates me is 1) the article is too shrill, and this guy doesn't speak for me. 2) the TITLE groups ALL Evangelical Christians in with this guy and 3) This is yet another "look how stupid religion is" post.

Put #2 and #3 together and people (including myself) will be offended.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Also when a belief system and it's adherents is mocked and abused for no good reason...

He was not mocking anyone's belief system here, only mocking something he found written online which deserves to be mocked.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I don't believe all evangelicals believe this but I do tend to hold all members of a group responsible if they silently accept the actions of it's fringe vocal minority. The lack of opposition speaks silently of an acceptance and I can't accept that. I have no clue if it applies here though so for me, this article doesn't really rise to this level.

The issue here is, as opposed to a much more organized church like Catholicism, there IS NO "head of the Evangelicals" that will allow one to make a statement for all.

I'm Evangelical. There is the possiblity of evil in almost everything. No, I can't accept that blogging is inherently bad.

I don't accept the actions of the the fringe vocal minority.

[Dutch]

I don't believe all evangelicals believe this but I do tend to hold all members of a group responsible if they silently accept the actions of it's fringe vocal minority. The lack of opposition speaks silently of an acceptance and I can't accept that.

If they would have interviewed someone like CraigSca would you're opinion after reading the article have been different? Probably so. But they weren't really interested in deflating their own story, I'll bet.

[st.cronin]

Actually, it's an open question to me whether that group would be considered "evangelical" or "fundamentalist." I can't tell from the article.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Christian groups don't go around pulling kids out of burning buildings like superhero's, but they do raise money and volunteer their time to help people in need. That seems to be lost on those who mock them because of the press they do get, wouldn't you think?

The same could be said about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. Just because you do good things that doesn't mean you can use that as a shield against criticism when you do/say stupid shit. (e.g., alleged making out with your brother, getting Billy Bob Thornton's name tattooed on you, carrying around BBT's blood in a vial around your neck, marring BBT, etc, etc, etc.)