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."
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
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.
Well, he was elected. . .linkity,
and he is the head of the Catholic Church, so he does have the authority to remind Catholics to behave online.
As for the other ad-hominems, I'll just leave them alone.
Thou shalt friend thy neighbor as thyself
Believe me I agree with you.
Personally, I don't give a fuck about the Pope says.
However, what he says affects me because there are many people around me that DO give a fuck about what he says.
Sadly, this makes the words of the Pope relevant news.
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).
Vatican City is an independent country. He is its Head of State by virtue of being elected Pope. So, he is an elected politician and a head of state. just because you disagree with the basic premise of his State and his authority doesn't make it go away, so deal with it. I'm not Catholic, I don't give a crap what he has to say either, but I'm not bitter that he's saying it. Its not like anyone who can affect my life actual listens to him, like Pat Robertson and his so-called "Christian Coalition" bullshit.
it's true that the more corrupt the things you say and the more fools listen, the more likely you are to make the news. Unfortunate, but reality. Lots of other influential people are chosen through even less direct methods, such as the managers of companies and judges. And whether we like it or not, about a billion people listen to what he says and pay some form of attention, so it's relevant, whether we agree or not. While a corporate talking head or a dictator gets media time, this fool will most likely get the same.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
I couldn't care less about your opinion, either.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
You should care, billion people respond to what he says, and their action can impact you in some pretty serious ways.
I don't like the church, but that doesn't mean I am not aware of it's impact.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Well, I care. And yes Seumas, today you're trolling* and should be modded down as such.
not one to cast stones, I've done it myself before
Life is not for the lazy.
" So, he is an elected politician and a head of state"
Head of a state whose constituents are in other countries.
"s not like anyone who can affect my life actual listens to him, "
Oh really? Believers are everywhere and they will use their belief to dictate how you live. In schools, in government, in the work place.
Pay attention because of a religious leader comes out and says something against 'people like you' your life will be in immediate impacted.
Ever Vigilant.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
And Iran's election was at least representative. When you look at the way the Pope is elected, you'll quickly notice that it doesn't even make fake attempts at resembling democracy.
The Pope is elected by the cardinals. Which are in turn appointed by the Pope. There's nothing any "ordinary" catholic contributes to that election.
Just a gentle reminder that "elected" doesn't necessarily mean that the process has anything to do with what we consider Democracy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...did he say if you should wear a condom while using the internet?
People want to know!!!
Yeah, find me a Catholic under the age of 40 who refuses to eat meat on a Friday during Lent, and who goes to church every Sunday.
The Pope has far less direct influence over the actions of most Catholics than you seem to think.
The pope just said, "Don't isolate yourself, don't be a dick, and try not to make us look bad online."
You have a problem with that!? I'm an Atheist, and I know Benedict's incredibly regressive stance on a lot of things, his involvement with covering up pedophile priests, and so on and so on.
Even I can get behind this. jeez.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
That's because, while the Vatican is recognized as a nation state, the Roman Catholic Church is not. Of course, the upside of this is that no one is forced to be a Catholic any more. If you don't like the way Popes are chosen, you pick a church more to your liking, or make your own.
You have that a bit funny. The current Pope picks the Cardinals, or rather picks new cardinals. The next Pope is chosen by those Cardinals. This does allow the current Pope no insignificant amount of power to try to direct the nature of his successor, but when the next Pope is chosen, he's dead.
Sort of like Soviet and Chinese elections.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"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."
Saint Pedobear disapproves of your comment.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Of course. Also, it's not like there are many world leaders that take his word into account because they share the same imaginary friend, and certainly the church doesn't own land and companies all over the world, and is certainly not one of the biggest and most effective lobbying organizations in the world.
Sadly, stupid stupid people with imaginary friends have more power than you think.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
hi, I meet the criteria. Yay for Pizza fridays during Lent (I hate fish)
Really, does anyone think there would be any serious commentary under this story? On Slashdot?
Dark Reflection
Of course the current Pope only gets to choose who chooses his successor, but... think about it, how many people do you know whose power stretches past their death? :)
Essentially, that means, though, that the system is perpetuated without a chance to break the cycle. Changes happen very, very slowly since like minded people will elect and appoint each other for as long as there are like minded people.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So you don't meet all of the criteria I laid out, and I suspect that a huge majority of people who would say "I'm a Catholic" that reads that question cannot honestly say that they fulfill those three simple criteria.
My point is not to bash Catholics or call them bad Catholics, but how much influence over your day-to-day behavior can anybody really believe the Pope has over you, if you don't even go to Church once a week? According to the church, regular mass attendance is very important because that's where you receive the sacrament of communion, one of the more important bits of being a Catholic... if the Pope really had the influence over behavior as is being suggested, I'd expect that Catholics would be there every week without fail.
He was NOT elected, you heretic! The Lord Himself chose him and planted the right idea in the hearts of the cardinals in His infinite wisdom.
There's nothing any "ordinary" catholic contributes to that election.
Except for the money to pay for the caviar.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
There's nothing any "ordinary" catholic contributes to that election.
They contribute alms and tithes. How do you think those bishops pay for those outrageously tacky costumes?
Which brings me to another point: the Catholic Church needs a new cost-cutting CFO. Instead of those custom made costumes, the bishops can pick out something of the rack at Wal-Mart. The nuns can sew in a bit out bling: it will keep them busy, so they don't have time to get themselves into some hanky-panky.
Oh, and this confessional service: Outsource it to a call center in India. The priest is hidden behind an opaque window anyway, so he might as well be in India.
I hope that the Church heeds my words and implements these cost-cutting actions. Otherwise, the Pope is going to pay a visit to Washington, DC, and say, "Um, like, we need a bailout or something."
That said, the last couple of years has been rough on devout Catholics. I'm biased, because one of my friends is one. She seems to have the same feelings that geeks have, when they love the company that they work for, but are not particularly fond of the management.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Weird. Do you think that might have been the point? I mean why would anyone set up a system that didn't put people who they disagreed with in charge once they were dead.
That is because you can disagree with someone and still listen to what they are saying and perhaps agree with other points. Most people will just pigeon hole a person and mark them as always right or always wrong, vs. Listening to their view and actually making a decision themselves if they agree with it or not.
Oddly enough you can extend this idea out even further and it is possible for Atheist to follow the philosophy of Christianity without any of the Dogma, and mythology around it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
And if the Catholic Church was a vast nation state or empire where its leadership had considerable political power, I'd be worried. As it is, no one is being forced to be a Catholic, so I don't care all that much.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"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.
Of course, the upside of this is that no one is forced to be a Catholic any more. If you don't like the way Popes are chosen, you pick a church more to your liking, or make your own.
...well, as far as Catholic Church is concerned, that might land you in eternal damnation (even if of relatively mild type; or even if just purgatory, still)
One that hath name thou can not otter
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.
You're not the boss of me!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
This does allow the current Pope no insignificant amount of power to try to direct the nature of his successor, but when the next Pope is chosen, he's dead.
He's out of office, not necessarily dead. There are precedents for papal resignation.
rage, rage against the dying of the light
That is because you can disagree with someone and still listen to what they are saying and perhaps agree with other points.
It's not a question of disagreement, though. I can disagree with Bush and I can disagree with Obama, and I can look at parts of what they say and acknowledge that they make a good point, sure. But I don't care what L. Ron Hubbard says, and I don't care what Ahmadinejad says, nor do I care what the Iranian mullahs, Kim Jong Il, or the pope have to say. All of the above-mentioned individuals long ago gave up any right to be taken seriously on any subject, and I'd much rather see them deposed and imprisoned than sit and listen to their diatribes. I don't care if they have a good idea about how to build high-quality solar pannels for the poor using feces and industrial waste; I don't want to hear about it because the source truly has poisoned the information.
It's the old question of whether it's moral to use research that was gathered through the torture of prisoners in concentration camps during WW2. Either you think that it is, or you think that it isn't. It has noting to do with disagreement, and everything to do with how we define our individual morali
True enough, though it's not a frequent occurrence.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
Ad-homilies?
Plus, as far as Catholics are concerned, I'm pretty sure there also precedents of returning from the dead / zombification...
(which one was it, anyway, when Karol Wojtya essentially (and in stark contrast to his own teachings) chose voluntary death / "euthanasia" by refusing medical treatment in last weeks of his life?)
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!
Damn straight, I'll make my own religion. With blackjack. And hookers.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The beef I got with the RCC is pretty much the same I have with the US. The ideas and principles it was found on are great, the guys that originally founded them were smart and, from what we know anyway, honest people.
What sucks is the current management.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
how many people do you know whose power stretches past their death?
You mean like presidents can choose supreme court justices who may serve long after the president's death?
Yup, that's pretty much it. It's a good thing they're totally über-wrong, isn't it?
In fact, screw the blackjack.
This at least very much depends on what we choose as the real funding date of RCC... oh well, at least current management is very decent as far as its past standards are concerned (and with the second case, with the amount of - yes - mythology which managed to grew around it, we might never know how much exactly it was about the wealthy seeking more influence and savings for themselves)
One that hath name thou can not otter
In other words, even a broken clock can give the right time twice a day.
"When you start from wrong premises, if your logic is flawless you will always end with wrong results. But if you use faulty logic, you still have a random chance of giving the right answer."
I think you have it wrong. It is not the blackjack you are supposed to be screwing.
He is not a politician nor does he hold public office. The concept of "elected" here is meaningless. He was chosen among a small group of peers in a manner similar to a jury.
The Vatican is a nation state. The Church is not.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you didn't care you wouldn't bother reading or replying in a thread regarding those individuals.
You do care, quite fervently about the people you listed. Of course it's all hate and anger, but that's part of caring too.
Touché .
Fuck alla that "netiquette", fetch me an altar boy, stat!
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why is there always some moron who has to chime in with the "DUH, U MUST KARE 'COS YER TALKING!!11!1" bullshit?
If that's your response, then you don't understand what I'm saying, and you don't understand what's being discussed. And you fail at basic logic, anyway.
See, that there is a defensive reaction. There's no need to be insulting, but considering the high level of emotion you have invested into this topic I guess it was inevitable. I guess I hit a nerve, and I apologize. Carry on with your not caring.
With the difference that the these judges don't elect the next pres...
Sorry, forgot the 2000 elections.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Still lashing out? This time without even making an attempt at civility. Of course I could be wrong about you being defensive, but continued attacks don't really go very far in supporting your case. It's quite obvious from this last post that you (likely) have deep seeded anger and hatred towards fundamental Christians, and mothers who give their children undeserved praise (I assume that's what you were getting at). Yet even that is a deflection from the raw anger that spurred you on when I stated that you care about the words and actions of people you hate. You can attack my opinions all you want, but it doesn't negate the fact that such high spirited emotional reactions aren't triggered by people or topics you don't care about.
You're a smart guy, and I've agreed with you a lot around Slashdot, and yes it is a tough moral question whether to listen to the words of monsters. But you seem to equate not listening to someone as the same as not caring about what they're saying, and I don't think that they are the same. It's a trivial point which (for some stupid reason) I felt compelled to share with Slashdot, but I think your responses have been entirely out proportion. I really am sorry I stuck a burr into your paw over such a thing and hope you'll accept my apology.
Double down. Perfect pairs. Late surrender. Lucky ladies.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
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.)
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
It's because I have to waste time on a regular basis explaining to religious idiots that "if you didn't believe in god, you wouldn't bother to argue about it" isn't a valid response in any shape or form. Your response seemed to be based on the same kind of "logic". Now that you've clarified things a bit, I see it's mostly a question of semantics.
Thanks for the reasoned response. I won't accept your apology, because you have nothing to apologize for - I overreacted. I'm regularly disappointed by how often other people make snap-judgments based on personal biases; I do my best to try and avoid making the same mistake, but obviously don't succeed all the time.
Your attempt to psychoanalyze me, on the other hand, was a total fail :) I don't hate fundies; I mostly feel sorry for them. I think that when they get involved in politics they usually need to be opposed every step of the way, and it's a good idea to oppose their policies in general. But hate them? Naw. There'd be more reason for me to hate muslim extremists, especially since they've been responsible for the deaths of my friends, but I don't even think I hate them, really. What hatred I may feel is generally aimed at ideologies and leaders rather than large groups.
Wow...that is a stupid argument they've been making to you. I mean, you can argue about anything without believing in it, it's called a hypothetical. No wonder.
Yeah, sorry about the armchair psychoanalysis. That was because I was watching "Lie to Me" while writing the comment and let my imagination get away from me.
Also, I think this whole thread illustrates that you are a reasonable person, as always I look forward to catching your comments as I lurk Slashdot