Will the Internet Kill Christianity?

[Shermana]

People perceive many things differently due to personal bias. I cannot call that "dishonest" if they are simply reacting out of fear to something.

If you repeatedly lecture a city kid about the danger of poisonous snakes on a nature path then give them a gun and send them down that path, are they being dishonest when they shoot a piece of rope curled up next to a tree on the path? They are afraid. That fear distorts their perceptions. Fundamentalists, either theist or atheist, are highly biased to begin with so their perceptions are distorted. Even someone who strives to be fearless and relaxed can't be 100% sure they are perceiving the world correctly. This is why the Scientific Method was developed; to overcome honest mistakes in perception.

I disagree, perceiving and interpreting something that is plainly not meant to be perceived and interpreted that way, especially when the facts are available, because of your bias, I believe is one of the worst forms of Intellectual dishonesty, if not the most archetypal. What they are afraid of is the truth proving that they are teaching falsehoods and leading their congregations to hell by the scripture's own standards. Their billions of dollars is on the line, and access to information which may jeapordize their monopoly on "truth" over their "flocks" is jeapordizing their income. That's what they're afraid of.

They're not afraid of the loss of the souls of their flocks.

They're afraid of the loss of the coins rattling in their coffers.

I think "Dishonesty" is too kind of a word for them.

 

[Jacksnyte]

I doubt it.



Note that his complaint is regarding "rejecting Christian fundamentalism", not God, religion in general or even Christianity.

RELEVANT Magazine - Will the Internet Kill Christianity?

I think the internet will kill certain types of Christianity that rely on their adherents' ignorance and laziness when it comes to a real understanding of their own religion. I was raised Southern Baptist during the big evangelical push that happened in the 70s and 80s, and witnessed this style of Christianity firsthand! If we had access to the internet back then, and were able to just google any questions we had, I think a lot more people would have been a lot more discerning!

 

[Road Warrior]

I disagree, perceiving and interpreting something that is plainly not meant to be perceived and interpreted that way, especially when the facts are available, because of your bias, I believe is one of the worst forms of Intellectual dishonesty, if not the most archetypal.

Something "plainly not meant to be perceived and interpreted that way"? Do you seriously think that religious texts, such as the Bible, can only be interpreted in one manner? If so, please tell me how you think it should be interpreted.

 

[Road Warrior]

I think the internet will kill certain types of Christianity that rely on their adherents' ignorance and laziness when it comes to a real understanding of their own religion. I was raised Southern Baptist during the big evangelical push that happened in the 70s and 80s, and witnessed this style of Christianity firsthand! If we had access to the internet back then, and were able to just google any questions we had, I think a lot more people would have been a lot more discerning!

My best friend in senior high school, class of '74, was a Southern Baptist. I was raised RLDS but was rather open-minded about the whole dogma thing. He talked me into going to some Southern Baptist rally for a "preacher" who was released from jail because God, supposedly, changed his finger prints. My first impression of this guy was driving up to the church and seeing a gold Cadillac with wire wheels parked on the lawn in front of the church. Not the parking lot but on the actual grass. Then I watched him fleece a girl of five dollars through this conversation:

"Who wants to donate to God tonight?" He looks around and picks out the girl. "You! How much money do you have on you right now?"

"Five dollars" she responds.

"God BLESS YOU! This young lady is going to give five dollars for our Lord! Who else will donate?"

I was completely disgusted.

 

[Road Warrior]

Like the Roman Empire, the Internet won't kill Fundamentalist Christianity, it will kill itself.

 

[bobhikes]

I truely believe that social interaction is the main cause of religion. It is a glue that binds individuals to society.

The internet is allowing people to be individuals first with out social negatives. This will cause the fall of social skills and religions.

 

[Road Warrior]

I truely believe that social interaction is the main cause of religion. It is a glue that binds individuals to society.

The internet is allowing people to be individuals first with out social negatives. This will cause the fall of social skills and religions.

Interesting concept, but disagreed in part.

Yes, the Internet is allowing more information exchange and discussion of ideas (a social skill itself). Yes, there is the ability on the Internet to exchange these ideas, due to relative anonymity for some (not all!), so some people are not exchanging ideas or discussing. They are simply venting. Those people end up being ignored.

The Arab Spring wouldn't have happened when it did and how it did without the Internet. Sure, they have many problems to go, it is a step in the right direction. A step for freedom, a step for maximizing every person, a step toward (for some) God. I see the Internet as a good thing.

 

[Penumbra]

Religions go through periods of decline and revival. Christianity in particular had periods of ebb and flow in American history.

I do think that the internet, an instantaneous global network of information, is a problem for worldviews that are not particularly supported by facts, or worldviews that are overly specific. When one can go online, meet Buddhists, read the Bhagavad Gita, read any version of the Bible, meet Muslims, meet atheists, and so forth, it's a big melting pot. It seems that worldviews that are inherently accepting, diverse, global, resilient, and supported by facts, are the ones which flourish in those conditions.

 

[Shermana]

Something "plainly not meant to be perceived and interpreted that way"? Do you seriously think that religious texts, such as the Bible, can only be interpreted in one manner? If so, please tell me how you think it should be interpreted.

Yes, I do, but that's an entirely different discussion topic, I believe there was an intended way of reading them, and there are clearly wrong ways of reading them, and that's the whole point of the whole "Scholarship" thing, to come to an objective conclusion on what was intended. But this is a whole thread's worth of discussion.

To put it bluntly, and I'm not going to get into the reasons why on this thread, I'm just going to answer your question, I believe it's supposed to be read in the lens and mindset of 2nd Temple Israelite beliefs, particularly of the early pre-Jesus Nazarene sects, to fully understand why Jesus was taken seriously by the Jewish cult of Nazarenes to begin with.

 

[Road Warrior]

I believe it's supposed to be read in the lens and mindset of 2nd Temple Israelite beliefs, particularly of the early pre-Jesus Nazarene sects

Second and First Century BCE? Perhaps in Judaism, but modern Christianity evolved from a wide variety of beliefs over several hundred years. There are not only differences between the Torah and the Christian Old Testament, but even between Christian Bibles: Old Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly, there are currently about 38,000 denominations of Christianity and a couple of dozen different translations of the Bible. I'm pretty sure all of them think their version is the one, true "lens and mindset".

 

[Road Warrior]

I do think that the internet, an instantaneous global network of information, is a problem for worldviews that are not particularly supported by facts, or worldviews that are overly specific. When one can go online, meet Buddhists, read the Bhagavad Gita, read any version of the Bible, meet Muslims, meet atheists, and so forth, it's a big melting pot. It seems that worldviews that are inherently accepting, diverse, global, resilient, and supported by facts, are the ones which flourish in those conditions.

Agreed and very well put.

Likewise, consider race and cultures. Globalization has produced a highly mobile civilization where races and cultures are mixing in the proverbial melting pot. It is unsurprising that spiritual beliefs are part of this melting pot.

 

[Shermana]

Second and First Century BCE? Perhaps in Judaism, but modern Christianity evolved from a wide variety of beliefs over several hundred years. There are not only differences between the Torah and the Christian Old Testament, but even between Christian Bibles: Old Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly, there are currently about 38,000 denominations of Christianity and a couple of dozen different translations of the Bible. I'm pretty sure all of them think their version is the one, true "lens and mindset".

Indeed, I'm well aware of the problems with "Christianity" in terms of scriptural issues and how to read it.

Well I don't want to derail the thread, but this in itself is a topic of debate I discuss nearly daily, the issue of why the "Messianic Jewish" (the nearest-correct term to use) or the 2nd Temple era Jewish viewpoint is the one that was MEANT to be used and why everything afterward from the "orthodox" and post-orthodox perspective is a deviation from the original that Jesus would not approve of.

This is a main part of what I'm saying here though: The more that "Christians" are exposed to information, the more they'll realize those 38,000 Pauline and post-Roman sects are deviations from the original, and the original is the question, of which I'm saying it was intended to be viewed through a totally "Jewish" (i.e. Torah-obedient) lens. Maybe this would be relevant to the thread, but I'm not sure, so I'm not going to discuss in depth on this thread. Yet.

The more that "Christians" have access to the internet, the closer to destruction these groups that have no real scholarly argument for their doctrines, let alone existence, comes. Everyone who is against the "Christian establishment" should want to take a part in helping 'Christians' better understand what their churches are deliberately scrambling to hide from them.

The idea though, is that we can't just write off an attempt to say what the "True, original" Church was, because we have actual scholarship and manuscripts and reasons for insisting on one view over another. Just as I would argue against the pastor's view, I would also argue against the view that we "Can't know what was intended", for I say we CAN figure out what was intended, it's not just something we necessarily have to leave to the world of total speculation, we can at least speculate different ideas from the evidence: And the current "Christian" Movement seems to be tripping over themselves in an attempt to cordone off all legitimate discussion of what the evidence and scholars are saying which would expose their claims to the throne as fallacious and in the face of the evidence.

As it stands, many scholars agree that 'Christianity" started off as a Jewish sect that simply believed Jesus was Messiah and obeyed his specific institutions, and only later developed into some anti-Judaizing, proto-"orthodox" gentile institution that we see with the "Church Fathers". And my argument is that the more "Christians" are exposed to this scholarship and writings on this issue, the more they'll see that the post-orthodox views are in fact not the lens which the scripture was meant to be viewed with.

How do I prove such a claim that this was the "intended lens"? That's a topic for another thread.

 

[sojourner]

The dishonesty plays a large role as well as increased education and knowledge that diminishes Christianity to the point that it is. I take it as being a good thing in light that it's painful to face real truths. I speak as an ex-Christian who left as a result of internet research and conversations with people who were undergoing the same things. The internet allows information up to date in an instant whereas in the past you would need transportation and access permissions to gather what can be accessed in a few clicks of the mouse with little trouble. Now intellectual dishonesty stands out like a sore thumb.

From my experiences, the religion just did not "click" anymore.

I don't think that's quite fair. The loudest cries that are described as "dishonest" are coming from the evangelical pews and pulpits. But there are other voices, too, which are more honest and forthright, and which are trying to reconcile old myth with post-modern sensibility.

The problem is that the biggest voice is the one from the pews, which contain people largely disinterested in deep theological discussion. I have a fairly well-versed congregation, yet most of the folks in the pews have ever heard of Sallie McFague, Beverly Mitchell, Douglas Hall, or James Cone. Nor do they care to.

The internet is great, but probably not the best for providing concise, trustworthy theological content, for the folks producing that kind of thing don't do it via the internet. They write books and commentaries.

 

[F0uad]

Like i said it can be used against it or for it.

 

[Adamski]

My Christianity was confirmed on line
Catholic.com

 

[Muffled]

I'd be interested to know what kind of information you learned that caused you to become an "Ex-Christian". Even as a Messianic Jew, I wish most "Christians" would leave their abominable "Churches" and theologies and embrace the world of scholarship to eventually be able to make a true decision and not a brainwashed pastor-spoonfed one.

I am not big on scholarship. My christianity didn't come that way and won't go away that way. Having a relationship with Jeus trumps scholarship because I know all that I need to know through Him.

 

[Father Heathen]

I am not big on scholarship. My christianity didn't come that way and won't go away that way. Having a relationship with Jeus trumps scholarship because I know all that I need to know through Him.

Can Jesus sing while your pastor drinks from a glass?

 

[Shermana]

I am not big on scholarship. My christianity didn't come that way and won't go away that way. Having a relationship with Jeus trumps scholarship because I know all that I need to know through Him.

Ah, so "having a relationship with Jesus' means that whatever you want to believe is true. Nicely said.