"I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less."
12 October 2006God hates blogsEspecially blogs by teenagers. Here's why, from the Restored Church of God:
Here is the definition of a blog from a highly popular blog provider: "A blog is a personal diary. A daily pulpit. A collaborative space. A political soapbox. A breaking-news outlet. A collection of links. Your own private thoughts. Memos to the world. Your blog is whatever you want it to be. There are millions of them, in all shapes and sizes, and there are no real rules…blogs have…enabled millions of people to have a voice" (emphasis ours).
Ask yourself, "Do I have a tendency to want to have a voice?" 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. Current mood: chortling. And how dare those little...those little...non-adults have a "tendency to want to have a voice"! Who do they think they are? Us? Oh, wait, we're not allowed either:
Should teenagers and others in the Church express themselves to the world through blogs? Because of the obvious dangers; the clear biblical principles that apply; the fact that it gives one a voice; that it is almost always idle words; that teens often do not think before they do; that it is acting out of boredom; and it is filled with appearances of evil — blogging is simply not to be done in the Church. It should be clear that it is unnecessary and in fact dangerous on many levels.
Let me emphasize that NO ONE — including adults — should have a blog or personal website (unless it is for legitimate business purposes). My luck, that asshole Moloch will be late with the frigging checks again. (Link and title swiped from Cruel.com.) Posted at 7:51 PM to Blogorrhea , Immaterial WitnessTrackBack: 6:55 AM, 13 October 2006 » "Thou shalt not blog" from 111 Brad Street I've seen the following article referenced by more than a few blogs now, and I can't ignore it any longer. A pastor, through an article posted online, tells Christian youth -- and Christian adults, for that matter -- that blogging......[read more] Some of their points are reasonable-blogs are in fact often full of idle, silly words (just check mine), and they certainly appeal to the self-centered (ditto), but the conclusion is faulty, since it assumes the worst of their own kids. That troubles me a little. They might as well tell kids not to play football because if they're successful they might become arrogant. They confuse what's inherently evil with what's potentially evil. Posted by: John Salmon at 10:22 PM on 12 October 2006In the grand scheme of things, why would the world at large care? That question can be directed at more than just blogs, but somehow I don't think the author of those words would appreciate the obvious example... Posted by: McGehee at 10:29 PM on 12 October 2006As a fundamentalist, I feel it is my duty to point out that we're not all loons. That is all. Posted by: Dan at 11:57 PM on 12 October 2006Hey, if we're going to condemn frivolity, idle word-twiddling, and the open expression of one's largely trivial and generally irrelevant thoughts, why don't we condemn small talk? And of course, all the venues in which small talk is facilitated, such as bars, living rooms, and dinner tables. Sheesh. This is a church? They should be ashamed of themselves. Loons. (Unlike, for instance, Dan.) I prefer to think of them as "fundamentally flawed" ... :) The Holy Church of the Restored Bigotry and Buffoonery is probably printing a voting guide as we speak. Posted by: Ron at 2:29 PM on 13 October 2006What's funny is that even while he is condemning it this person seems to have accepted the same immature idea of what blogs and other personal websites are supposed to be for. And what is even funnier is the fact that his article has the same structure as a blog post -- it even has his name up on top, and I doubt that even he would argue that there is nothing personal about the opinions he is sharing "with the world" from his web-based "soapbox." But there are no pictures of his cats or accounts of fights with his buddies punctuated with "OMG!!!" and h4X0r talk, so it's okay. Posted by: Andrea Harris at 8:19 PM on 13 October 2006Ah, it's been too long since I've been assured I'm going to Hell for doing something totally innocuous, like, going to see Monty Python's Life of Brian (thank YEW, Garnett Road Baptist Church!) I was exiled by marriage from Oklahoma, and it still happens in The Other State wherein I now reside. But it's good to know that Hell (perhaps it is Texas) will one day be my permanent address. They DO have blogs in Texas, right? Posted by: Ms Cornelius at 8:50 PM on 13 October 2006Well you know what they say ... "Heaven for the scenery and Hell for the company" :). Posted by: Ron at 9:20 AM on 14 October 2006" I feel it is my duty to point out that we're not all loons." When one feels duty-bound to make such statements, it's a sure bet that there's plenty of lunacy to be found. But I'm sure Dan's quite correct. I sincerely have no doubt that not all prisoners are guilty, not all Congressmen are crooked, and not all hookers have communicable diseases. That still doesn't mean I'm going to prison (or Congress) looking for honest men, or that I don't recommend condoms (for use with all three examples). Posted by: Mister Snitch! at 12:19 AM on 15 October 2006 |