Slashdot Mirror
Pope Promotes Christian Netiquette
angry tapir writes "Pope Benedict XVI Monday gave his blessing to social networking, urging Catholic Internet users to adopt a respectful Christian netiquette when spreading the Gospel online. The pope said new technologies were creating unprecedented opportunities for establishing relationships and building fellowship but warned against creating false online profiles out of vanity or diluting the Christian message to achieve popularity."
I can't think of anyone on the planet from whom I could care less about their opinion or thoughts on *anything*. It'd be fantastic if we stopped treating him like some elected politician. And, if he were, I certainly wouldn't give to shits of credit to someone who can't even oblige the REAL WORLD etiquette of not covering up the rape of children.
And yeah, you can mark me a troll for all I fucking care.
is not to 'friend' young boys.
or diluting the Christian message to achieve popularity.
Who dilutes the Christian message more than the Vatican?
Living With a Nerd
Today's theme is "Messages that should have been made 20 years ago."
where on earth they found a picture of a nun with an Eee PC.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
The trolls that appeared are one of the reasons religion stories need comments approved by moderators first.
Catholic Church, but this make me happy.
Religion would bother me a lot less if the people practicing it were polite.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Cue litany of anti-Christian (and anti-religious in general) rhetoric by so-called "tolerant" Internet users
"It is important always to remember that virtual contact cannot and must not take the place of direct human contact with people at every level of our lives."
Said the pope, just before praying to god
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Thou shalt friend thy neighbor as thyself
What an amusingly coincidental opinion, given that he's talking about "social networking." You see, just like the Pope, nobody really cares about Facebook either. Except that lots of other people care about Facebook (just as lots of other people obey the Pope or pay lip service to him), and through the network effects, Facebook and the Pope end up mattering to you anyway. Even though you don't care. They wield power.
If the Pope says, "Kill all the infidels" this is an important thing for you to know (whether you're an infidel who will be killed, or will be one of the killers).
I wonder if the eventual recommendations will include something saying that top posting is bad. If so then the pope will go up in my estimation.
Trimming of multiple copies of old signatures would be good as well! I suppose that avoiding HTML email would be too much to ask for.
...did he say if you should wear a condom while using the internet?
People want to know!!!
Gosh all you /. hipsters with the Pope and religion bashing, you're all so very cool and intellectual. Scores of really well-thought-out posts. /sarcasm.
The only people that will actually wait for a religious figure to "approve" anything in order to implement it to their daily life are the people less likely to use the Internet, in this case. All the religious acquaintances I've met/kept in touch with online have used it regardless of this so-called "blessing".
It doesn't matter if you're religious or not, if you're all waiting for someone to tell you "hey, this thing ain't so bad, I used it, so you can use it too!" then you deserve to be mocked.
All glory to Arstotzka!
Really, does anyone think there would be any serious commentary under this story? On Slashdot?
Dark Reflection
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
"He knows what he's talking about; it's 2000 years people doing his job use a nickname"
The pope said there was "a Christian way of being present in the digital world: this takes the form of a communication which is honest and open, responsible and respectful of others."
If people would actually follow this it would increase the quality of the discourse on the internet. Regardless of what you think of the religion, this is a good thing.
And why must every Catholic article get the same tired pedophile priest jokes? There's no more pedophile priests than there are pedophile psychiatrists, teachers, and scout masters out there.
And this is why /. shouldn't post anything on religion. The readers of /. may know a lot about technology, but the people who post, don't know the first thing about religion and only post comments based off pop-culture and don't actually do their own research.
Are they allowed to use Antivirus software or do they have to explore the social media bareback, as it were. And do they have to commit to only one site or can they explore there options before choosing one site over the other?
Vatican 2 would indicate otherwise: http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/issue3/hall.htm. Though it does indicate that it is the most complete source of truth, those religions which most closely parallel its own teaching would appear to get rough approval. While the linked article does not discuss Protestant / Catholic issues, the Protestant churches of the world are those most likely to find approval under the Vatican 2 schema. "All truth is God's truth" is significant (though not stated this way) in the related documents and has led some Catholic theologians to look towards a type of inclusivistic redemption for those in other religions.
Apostasy might have harsher claimed consequences though (too lazy to check) - that was the scenario I had on my mind, which would be probably the case more often than not (in the context of "no one is forced to be a Catholic any more", being aware of internal processes of the Church and disliking them, considering how most Christians are Catholic, and also how the Church appears more concerned about those walking away than about losing some potential conversions)
Inclusivistic redemption is only sensible considering how, in practice (and despite generally claims to the contrary), Catholicism ... Christianity ... heck, pretty much any religion is strongly syncretic; but that's beside the point.
One that hath name thou can not otter
I think these will eventually evolve, but I'd like to see *more* organized pushes to set some standards. I've been a net denizen since around '91 and many of the issues I see people struggling with (or at least not appreciating the consequences of) I've already been through. Things like firing off that quick, snide comment, the persistence of any statements you make, privacy, etc. I'm by no means perfect or Lawful Good on the interwebz, but I at least understand what can happen every time I interact online.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I just want to let Taco and crew know that I won't be using any more of them on idle until I can view comments without having to manually change the URL.
C'mon guys, fix idle already. It doesn't matter that a lot of people don't come here; it's the principle of the thing!
...we need to see Muslim decency, beyond the two or three people that practice it.
Note what it's aiming at.
If you read between the lines, then obviously "spreading the gospel" is the only reason a devout cathaholic should have of being online. At least according to the pope.
Wake me when they've left Lalaland and become more than old men with funny hats. Until then, go teach them about Eris and the FSM.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
People still give a damn what that asshat has to say? I've never seen anyone more wishy-washy about what they say... that's religion for you though. Make exceptions where you see fit.
Amazingly, preaching, teaching or reaching, everyone should unmask themselves.
There are some useless, hate-filled posts on the intrawebs by self-professed Christians. I can't help but think of Congressman Gifford's shooting, which may or may not have been politically-motivated, but the shooter got juiced somehow, and prolific hate messages are juice.
Christians in particular (imho) seem to grab an issue and bang it into the ground, taunt others with it, etc.... which really isn't what Christianity is about. (Or Islam, or Buddhism, for that matter). So hearing a religious leader basically CONDEMN 'anonymous' intolerant hate messages sends a powerful message (I hope) that the self-professed religious are accountable for what they post.
(And I esp. appreciate that the Pope made a unpopular statement like that — he knew he'd take heat for promoting tolerance, and he really has taken heat, even from his own priests who want to actively promote anti-choice/pro-life, or other agendas, on the intrawebs.)
Three pages full of comments and still no pedobear reference?
Generally, I somehow forgot the most important thing, what makes recent developments... slightly dubious, in context of matters at hand: how it is even possible, considering the Church always claims to be the most complete (or exclusive, at times) source of truth, to have things which at one point would land you in hell ... and at other point, in heaven? (and vice versa!!)
(at least, regarding truth, Catholic Church earns a big plus with "truth cannot contradict truth" on the occasion of openly accepting evolution)
One that hath name thou can not otter