Pope Promotes Christian Netiquette 218
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."
/. News Network (Score:2)
Today's theme is "Messages that should have been made 20 years ago."
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more interested in... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
where on earth they found a picture of a nun with an Eee PC.
Photoshop is a wonderful thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't let the 500 year old fashion fool you. Most Priests, Nuns, Monks. Are well versed in todays technologies, as much as the rest of the population of their age is. In many ways these people have keener minds as they get older then the rest of the population. As religious life has many of the rigors of academic life. Keeping their minds fresh and continuously learning.
Re: (Score:2)
How do we know it's photo shopped?
Hell, how do we know thats a nun?
Re: (Score:3)
The Catholic Church is not against modern technology. Quite the opposite. It usually takes them a while to adopt them officially and use them (Vatican TV first aired in 1983 or something), but that doesn't mean that they consider it the "work of the devil" or similar bull.
I don't remember any recent case where the RCC condemned any technology (that didn't directly touch one of their doctrines like the Pill) for the sake of being technology. You might notice that a lot of RCC personnel is actually quite fami
I have many issues with the (Score:5, Insightful)
Catholic Church, but this make me happy.
Religion would bother me a lot less if the people practicing it were polite.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It varies with denomination, but many of them are either encouraged or even not allowed to be polite.
They get brownie points for being able to perceive themselves as a repressed minority due to their faith, easiest way to do this is to behave outrageously and get flak for it.
They may be required to convert the heathens on punishment of damnation for failing to spread the word.
etc.
On the other hand, I know a few genuinely nice religious people with a good sense of humor, but they seem to be in the minority.
Re: (Score:3)
Me too. I like the rule against dilution as well, actually.
Picking the nice and fluffy bits out of the Bible makes it all sound much better than it is when you pay attention to the entire thing.
Atheists should definitely welcome it. Lots of people lose their belief when they read the Bible from cover to cover and find out that there's quite a bit of nasty stuff in there.
Re: (Score:2)
I find just learning about it's history pretty much makes people understand it's a load.
OTOH, most people think the letter of the NT were written by people who actually met Jesus. Or that Jesus was real.
Re:I have many issues with the (Score:4, Funny)
Jesus is real. He mows my lawn and comes from Guatemala.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Take Quakers, please! They has profound civility. But this humility is a double-edged sword... Bombard your average Quaker with gamma rays and you get... something... dangerous...
Smedley Darlington Butler smash!
Praying (Score:5, Funny)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
Why did my mod points expire yesterday? This was the funniest thing I've read on /. in a while!
Re: (Score:2)
"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
I see what you did there, but...it kind of misses the point.
Sure, you can draw an analogy between prayer and "virtual contact", but the Pope isn't condemning virtual contact, he is stating that it is important that it not take the place of "direct human contact with people at every level of our lives". I think you will find that, generally, the Pope and the Church, while obviously supporting prayer, don't advocate it displacing "direct human contact with people at every level of our lives". So, even seeing
Re: (Score:2)
I beg to differ. Praying to god is a replacement for direct human contact.
Want something done? Do it yourself, with help from other real live human beings ... or pray to god.
Want to be thankful? Thank those real live people who made what you are thankful for ... or pray to god.
It misses no point at all. While you are busy being with virtual god, you could be interacting with real live human beings.
Prayer is less influential than Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying he's a hypocrite for claiming we should not let virtual contact replace physical then proceeds to partake in virtual communication with God?
Yes
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Prayer is the least productive form of begging.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not doing it right...
Re: (Score:3)
Odd, when I was at school we thanked the dinner-ladies, not god. (Also a C of E primary school)
Re: (Score:2)
Your "for instance" was to prove the point that prayer serves a purpose. I fail to see how prayer had any purpose in your example, other than to keep the kids quiet and acquiescent.
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of saying a prayer before eating was to make us aware that not everyone in the world was fortunate enough that day to have a meal, and therefore to make us thankful for what we had.
We were fully aware of those facts - no need to pray to have it beaten into our skulls on a daily basis. You're aware that not everyone has a computer, right? So do you pray before you use a computer each day, y'know, just to make you thankful for what you have?
Yes, there are other ways to teach that to children, but they do not invalidate prayer as means to achieve it.
Damn right they do. The most obvious way is to tell kids right out. If you add prayer into the mix then you're also lying to them about some non-existent spirit who made the food available to them. Of course prayer is an invalid means to achieve the
Re: (Score:2)
Thanking god for your food implies some supernatural force has something to do with it ending up on your plate.
Re: (Score:2)
"Your" definition matters not when you are a school-kid being told what to say.
"Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name (etc)" is totally not the same as 'good fortune'. As far as bad analogies go, you've taken first prize.
Re: (Score:2)
ha ha, only kidding -- sort of
'friend' thy neighbor? (Score:3, Funny)
Thou shalt friend thy neighbor as thyself
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When friending they neighbors wife, thy neighbors wife shall be stoned, or whipped, or hanged.
And when they Neighbors wife shill poke you, you will shun they neighbors wife and tell the elders so thy community will cast her out.
Anything about top posting ? (Score:2)
I wonder if the eventual recommendations will include something saying that top posting [netmanners.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
top posting is logical, productive, and practical.
Bottom posting is stupid, confusing, and not practical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really hate when I see a long email on a list and either have to hit page down 10 times to find the first bit that I didn't just read in the last 5 messages or when I get to the bottom 30 pages later and still haven't found anything new. It might be there and it might not, who knows?
That's all well and good, but... (Score:2)
...did he say if you should wear a condom while using the internet?
People want to know!!!
Slashtrolling (Score:2)
Tim Minchin said it best about the Pope (Score:2)
Not a bad message (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
> There's no more pedophile priests than there are
> pedophile psychiatrists, teachers, and scout masters
cite, please.
The commonly-held belief is that the priesthood attracts self-loathing homosexuals and/or pedophiles at a higher rate than other professions. These people then try to use priesthood celibacy to repress their sexuality, and eventually they simply "burst".
Re: (Score:3)
> There's no more pedophile priests than there are
> pedophile psychiatrists, teachers, and scout masters
cite, please.
Here's one for starters [newsweek.com].
The commonly-held belief is that the priesthood attracts self-loathing homosexuals and/or pedophiles at a higher rate than other professions.
Please point to any evidence for the effect this "commonly-held" belief explains (to wit, the supposedly greater incidence of abuse in the Catholic Church). You don't even need to support the explanation offered by the belief, just the thing it seeks to explain.
Really? (Score:2)
Religion aside, we need netiquette standards (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget the anti-Christian rhetoric poorly disguised as anti-religious-in-general rhetoric. That's popular too these days.
Re: (Score:2)
You rang? Just kidding.
I don't see anything to be offended about here. A lot of people on the internet could do with some more politeness on occasion.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Wicca for instance is just as much bullshit as Christianity, but so far they don't seem to be trying to force anything on me, so I haven't had a reason to protest against them.
I'm perfectly fine with people having private irrational beliefs and staging elaborate ceremonies with scented candles (or whatever the Wicccans do on a regular basis). Now when people start trying to impose their religion on the rest of society, that's when I start having a very big problem with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the anti-Christian rhetoric poorly disguised as anti-religious-in-general rhetoric. That's popular too these days.
One is a subset of the other. I am anti-Christian, and anti-religious. There is no conflict.
Re: (Score:2)
There's only no conflict if you either keep your subsets straight or proceed broaden things very carefully. Anti-religious arguments are easy to narrow into anti-Christian ones, but broadening specifically anti-Christian arguments into anti-religious ones can be considerably more difficult. Most Internet attempts to do so end in failure, making the whole argument look like it was written by a teenager -possibly a very smart one- looking to piss off his parents because they made him go to church too often.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the anti-Christian rhetoric poorly disguised as anti-religious-in-general rhetoric. That's popular too these days.
Just wondering: how the heck did this get up-modded? It's a blatant troll and completely false in any case. If it were true, you could identify, say, Jews or Muslims or Protestants (since people who call themselves "Christians" are generally Papists) who argue against religion as a "screened attack" on Catholics.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And one has to wonder why there is so much anti-Christian rhetoric floating about. What could it possibly be?
I mean, when did you get any anti-Pagan, anti-Judaic, anti-Islam, anti-Buddhist, anti-Hinduist... rhetoric lately? I mean, aside of overzealous Christians?
That's my main beef with the Christians: They don't just leave you alone when you declare that you don't want to hear any of their bull. They feel the need to push their delusions into everyone's face. And everyone's law. Stop doing that and you'll
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
anti-Judaic? anti-Islamic? Right here on Slashdot. Go back and read about the Israel/Palestine peace talk leaks. There's a lot of quite nasty rhetoric going both ways from people who claim to be disinterested parties.
You seem to think that the only person saying nasty things about other religions is Christians. You're quite wrong. This doesn't excuse the Christians who *are* spouting nonsense, but it applies equally well to anybody of any religious orientation.
Re: (Score:2)
See that's the whole thing. He came back from the dead
Unproven assertion.
and fulfilled numerous prophesies told about the coming savior.
Unproven assertions, in addition to the fact that the writers of the later books were aware of the prophesies of the earlier books and thus were able to write their stories to match.
But go ahead and not believe and have fun.
Thanks! I am having more fun now!
No one is forcing you to accept that.
You are correct. I happen to live in a country with freedom of religion, and my social stature is such that I do not have to maintain a religious facade in public.
You get to choose what you believe and have faith in.
Wrong. I can only believe in what I think is true. When I saw how full of shit religion was in general and Christia
Re:The pope should just shut the fuck up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The pope should just shut the fuck up. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The Vatican is a nation state. The Church is not.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
re: "eternal damnation" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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 con
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
True enough, though it's not a frequent occurrence.
Re: (Score:2)
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?)
Re: (Score:3)
Damn straight, I'll make my own religion. With blackjack. And hookers.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, screw the blackjack.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have it wrong. It is not the blackjack you are supposed to be screwing.
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing any "ordinary" catholic contributes to that election.
Except for the money to pay for the caviar.
Re: (Score:3)
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 hid
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The pope should just shut the fuck up. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
" 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 whe
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if the Pope said that in 2011, he would be roundly ignored, other than to have a bunch of Catholics around the world go, "Um.... no?"
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if the Pope said that in 2011, he would be roundly ignored, other than to have a bunch of Catholics around the world go, "Um.... no?"
If you believe that, I've got some nice Vatican-side property to sell ya ...
You know, most muslims don't go around killing infidels either, but it only takes 0.1% of that population to cause some serious problems. If you think that a proclamation of Jihad from the Vatican wouldn't motivate thousands of lunatics to go out and murder, rape, and pillage, you're a fool.
Re: (Score:2)
And the likelihood of any given person dying at the hands of a Pope-sponsored jihad? Certainly lower than your chances of dying to terrorism.
So why is it okay to live in fear of the Pope, but foolish to live in fear of dying to terrorism?
There are numerous self-styled smart dudes here who would be hasten to point out that many of our anti-terror measures are pointless, and we're wasting money and time on counteracting a threat that, on a societal scale, is fairly minor. But the fact that the Pope *could*
Re: (Score:2)
And the likelihood of any given person dying at the hands of a Pope-sponsored jihad? Certainly lower than your chances of dying to terrorism.
At the moment, yes. You sure you read what I wrote?
So why is it okay to live in fear of the Pope, but foolish to live in fear of dying to terrorism?
I think both are equally foolish. I don't fear the pope or the mullahs - I just want to see them destroyed, and their evil idologies wiped from the mind of man.
There are numerous self-styled smart dudes here who would be hasten to point out that many of our anti-terror measures are pointless, and we're wasting money and time on counteracting a threat that, on a societal scale, is fairly minor. But the fact that the Pope *could* influence a handful of Catholics if he declared a jihad is somehow something to be worried about?
Something to consider, and to mitigate before it becomes a problem. If that's what you mean by "worry", then yes. If, on the other hand, you mean something along the lines of "invade the Vatican", then no.
Re:Good Christian Netiquette.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure, I think Tom Lehrer managed to top them with the Vatican Rag [youtube.com].
Re:HAH (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever your opinion on religion as a whole, the idea of taking doctrine from other living people makes Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics both seem to me to be the same kind of deal.
And yet, taking it from dead people is somehow more sensible?
You may consider me a fool for believing the Bible, and that's fine, but I have read it myself, and I do interpret it for myself-- and I believe that's the most important two things possible for separating legitimate belief systems from gigantic cults.
I've read it, too. There is nothing to differentiate it from the rest of Bronze age mythology.
You may say Christianity and Catholicism are the same, but as a protestant, I would very much disagree with that idea.
No, I interpreted the grandparent as saying that Catholics weren't Christian, which is a load of crap. Obviously there are different branches of Christianity with different interpretations of different documents, but they are all in the same family tree, and very closely related to Islam and Judaism as well.