"The Internet Is My Religion"
At Personal Democracy Forum this year (PDF is a yearly conference about the intersection of the internet and politics—I attended in ’07 and it was awesome), a man named Jim Gilliam gave an amazing talk called “The Internet is my religion”, which is very much worth watching:
Again, you really should watch it but if you haven’t the gist is that Jim was brought up as a fundamentalist evangelical Christian (creationism and all) and gave up on that faith after first discovering alternative points of view through the internet and then when internet activism helped cure his cancer. It’s a truly touching story.
It was obviously fascinating to watch as both a Christian and an Internet-lover. I have to admit that I began watching with an eye out for theological nits to pick, but I finished convinced that Jim understands the heart of Christianity as well as perhaps any Christian.
Perhaps the best and most significant part of the talk is this quote: “God is just what happens when humanity is connected.” And indeed the unique feature of Christianity is that it is based on a personal relationship with God—indeed, a god who is both fully human and fully divine. I do believe that God “happens” when humanity is connected. I also believe that God is more and not “just” that, but I also think it’s as important to get the first part as it is to get the second part.
Talking about how the internet helped him beat cancer, Jim says: “I could never repay this debt. … We all have this same cross to bear. We all owe our lives to countless people we’ll never meet.” And indeed it is this feeling of gratitude that is the impetus for following the Commandment of Love. The most important word in “Love each other as I love you” may be “as”, because it doesn’t just mean “in the same amount” (impossible) or “in the same way” (almost impossible) but for the same reasons. We should love each other because God loves us, and God loves us because we are made for love.
If it’s possible to glance at the face of God through a song or a beautiful vista, it’s equally possible to see Him through the Internet.
(Oh, and by the way, religious/conservative parents: the story of Jim as countless other stories shows that you should educate your children about the world instead of trying to shield them from it. And that if you teach Creationism to a child with an IQ over 90, you’re just begging to turn him into an atheist.)
I certainly hope Mr. Gilliam understands that wherever you find God, you don’t have to look too far to also see the Devil. I’m pretty sure Anthony Weiner’s view of the internet is a bit more Satanic than Divine.
Mike
— MBunge · Jun 9, 11:46 AM · #
PEG:
thanks for a good post. I would agree that Gilliam has touched the heart of Christianity when he shows his gratitude. Owing a debt he can never repay shows a profound understanding of the position of all of us—before we accept Christ. A paraphrase of Jesus’ words is apropos: “Jim Gilliam is not far from the Kingdom of God.”
I do want to pick a large nit, however. The danger of bringing a hot button like creationism into this is that most of us Christians don’t believe in a young earth or six 24 hour days and have no problem with evolution as natural selection. Most of us might profess some ignorance about what exactly evolution is (and ignorance of the topic is not peculiar to Christians), but we have no doubt Who created the process. That’s creationism and no shielding from the world was involved.
— jd · Jun 9, 12:18 PM · #
The one true and living God can only be known by those who are regenerated in Christ.
— Ken Silva · Jun 10, 03:11 AM · #
If you’re a Christian who believes in Evolution/Natural Selection, you’ve got pretty big credibility problems.
That would mean you can’t possibly take the Bible literally. And that’s fine.
But the thing I’d wager you can’t answer is this: which parts of the Bible are literally true, which parts are not, and how do you know?
I mean, you’ve got to know, right? Otherwise, well, how do you know exactly what to believe?
If no parts of the Bible are literally true, that sounds like mythology to me. You don’t want Christianity to be mythology, do you?
Good luck.
— Socrates · Jun 10, 06:26 PM · #
so much of this great talk reminded me of Teilhard de Chardin “You are not a human being in search of a spiritual experience. You are a spiritual being immersed in a human experience.”
— Bob Carlton · Jun 10, 07:59 PM · #
I started typing a real response to Socrates, but then I realized I’m trying to respond to someone whose comments betray his ignorance, who at the same time calls himself Socrates.
But here goes. Pearls before swine.
If you’re a Christian who believes in Evolution/Natural Selection, you’ve got pretty big credibility problems.
Not at all. I just don’t believe in what some people call evolution—i.e. that everything came from the primordial ooze and that the end of all that evolution is perfection. There’s lots of evidence for natural selection, for an old earth. But that we came from a bit of slime and evolved a soul, not so much. Whatever evolution has occurred was part of a creative plan. I believe that to be literally true. I don’t believe that God created the earth in six 24 hour days. I do believe Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God. I can’t begin to explain it. There are other things in the Bible I don’t understand. There are things in the Bible that are not important enough to argue about or to die for. But that Jesus Christ was who he said he was is not one of them.
As for mythology: I believe that unlike all the other myths out there, Christianity just happens to be true.
— jd · Jun 10, 09:08 PM · #
jd-
If I’m so “ignorant”, how is that you can’t answer my question?
“I don’t believe this part”, but “I do believe this other part”… based on, what? How do you determine which parts are literally true, and which parts are not?
It’s a simple question.
“I can’t begin to explain it.”
Exactly.
— Socrates · Jun 10, 11:42 PM · #
^ “How do you determine what revelation is true” is hardly a simple question. It’s also a problem that exists totally independent of the question of creationism/evolution. And saying that one believes everything in the Bible is inspired only begs the question of how one decides what books are cannonical and what inspiration really is; one can’t just take the Bible as a given and avoid these questions!
— Aaron · Jun 11, 04:36 PM · #
Aaron:
You have hit on the problem that is for me one of the most troublesome—i.e., it was men who decided which books are canonical. C.S. Lewis actually wrote that some books of the Bible are “more inspired” than others. I have an idea of what that means, but it might not resemble Lewis’ idea at all. That’s part of the reason why I have a hard time adhering to everything in the Bible. Who made these men the “deciders?”
The whole notion of inspiration is problematic for me as well. If the Biblical writers were inspired, why can’t there still be inspiration today?
But the central truths are too wonderful to dismiss—they are, in fact, too good to be true. Lord, I believe, but help my unbelief.
As Mark Twain said, It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.
That’s not to say that I actually understand God being Man, or the resurrection, or God being Creator. It’s that those statements are unequivocal and straightforward and totally matters of faith.
— jd · Jun 11, 05:07 PM · #
“one can’t just take the Bible as a given and avoid these questions!”
But that’s your only choice!
If a religion is based on a holy book in which some parts are considered literal, some parts are considered myth, you have a fundamental problem. And the opinions about which is which has had to change over time, as science makes more of the stories or concepts seem ridiculous. Your problem keeps getting worse!
Did Jesus actually change water into wine, or is that a myth? Was Jesus actually born of a virgin, or is that a myth? Did god actually walk on the earth as a man, or is that a metaphor?
But Christians can’t say how we (or they) can know which parts are myth and which parts are literally true.
If you believe in unicorns or faeries, people don’t take you seriously. But you can believe in angels and the devil! And, they’re invisible! How convenient – imagine the problem if they were not!
I think my question is a simple one. jd can’t answer, but jd doubles down. If jd can’t even say how jd separates the literal parts from the mythical parts, how will jd ever answer my next question, which is, how does jd know that, of all the mythologies, only the Christian one is actually true?
— Socrates · Jun 11, 05:22 PM · #
“It’s also a problem that exists totally independent of the question of creationism/evolution.”
I was raised in the Lutheran church, went to religious school for nine years. I was taught that Genesis was LITERALLY true.
In fact, the debate over evolution/creationism is crucial – and that’s why many Christians spend so much time and energy fighting against the science. Because once you expose Genesis as myth – the foundation is looking pretty weak.
What else is myth? (Apparently, even Christians are unsure!)
You can’t accept evolution/Natural Selection as true and also accept a literal interpretation of Genesis. You can’t.
But the evidence for Natural Selection is overwhelming, profoundly compelling. And therefore, Genesis can only be seen as myth. Even jd admits this! So Christianity’s creation story, as told in the Bible, is myth!
Wow. What else is myth? You can’t even say how you decide! That’s a rather profound problem you’ve got there.
— Socrates · Jun 11, 06:31 PM · #
Heck – Christianity is very much about avoiding difficult questions.
God is omniscient. Therefore God knows the future. (I think this is undeniably a tenet of Christianity.)
But this means that it is impossible for us to have free will. If the future is known by God, we cannot be acting freely. If we aren’t acting with free will, how can we be responsible for our actions?
But Christianity requires us to have free will!
— Socrates · Jun 11, 07:14 PM · #
“‘one can’t just take the Bible as a given and avoid these questions!’ But that’s your only choice! If a religion is based on a holy book in which some parts are considered literal, some parts are considered myth, you have a fundamental problem.” – Soc: my point is that considering the whole thing to be literal doesn’t solve any fundamental problem. The question of how you know whether revelation is what it claims to be is still present. It doesn’t become genuinely more or less difficult to determine the answer if you take a dogmatic approach (“whatever the Bible says is true” or “revelation is impossible”); you’re just hiding from the question.
JD- I studied this one time and don’t everying that I read now, but I do remember that the people making the cannons for Judaism, Catholicism and Protestantism had no problem basing their decisions on what they considered to be theologically correct; so the cannon derives from people’s theological beliefs as much as the other way around.
One might believe in the Resurrection, and the history of the Jewish people and their writings, and say that God really was involved, without being sure on lots of points of theology and interpretation, and I think most believers accept that; so why should we demand certainty about what is and is not Cannonical. And if a book was inspired, was the whole thing inspired? Is it inerrant? We aren’t talking about books that present themselves as dictations, like the Koran.
I guess I look at revelation as happening progressively over time, and if I had the time I would look at what writings reflected typical views at the time they were written and which were part of the path toward a uniquely Jewish or Christian conception of God.
— Aaron · Jun 12, 12:57 AM · #
Socrates:
I don’t disagree with you, but you sound awfully confident that you have a better solution.
How do YOU decide what is true? How do YOU know that you can trust your senses, or other people’s, or science, or whatever it is you base your truth system on?
Even positivism has some pretty fundamental philosophical flaws.
Again, I’m not disagreeing with you, but I hope you realize that that sword you are wielding cuts through a lot more philosophies than just Christianity.
— Ralph · Jun 12, 01:20 PM · #
A literal interpretation of the Bible is, I believe, a form of mental illness. If one cannot see that the book is full of metaphors then one has consigned themselves to ignorance. This was something that the early Church fathers recognized, and St. Augustine wrote quite clearly on the matter. A literal reading is a “low” reading of the Bible, while the beauty of the metaphors employed would function on a “higher” level for serious readers and thinkers. As for which books are cannonical, remember that Luther himself had grave misgivings over including the Book of Revelation in the German Bible, as he did not think it inspired.
— steeffen · Jun 12, 02:32 PM · #
Socrates,
If a religion is based on a holy book in which no parts are considered literal, does that solve the problem? Literality is an empirical question, but faith is not.
— Matt · Jun 12, 02:42 PM · #
A literal interpretation of the Bible is, I believe, a form of mental illness (emphasis added)
Could we also say that a belief that certain people who hold certain beliefs are mentally ill is also a form of mental illness?
BTW, I thought it was the book of James that Luther questioned. Not saying he didn’t question Revelation as well, but I’ve never heard that one and I’ve read more of Luther than has the average bear.
Good point about the early church fathers, though. If you read carefully, you’ll see that they appointed me to decide what is metaphorical and what was to be taken literally. Wait, no, it was Luther who did that. In any case, who are you to say I don’t have a monopoly on the truth?
— The Reticulator · Jun 12, 04:07 PM · #
Jesus was tormented and then executed by reactionaries frightened by a changed world. The Macabee’s attempted to take Israel back to the past and they ruined everything. Modern fundamentalists cling to a “Golden Past” and thus ruin faith. The arrogance of those who presume Jesus would reject science; medicine, evolution or the Internet is offensive! Why do we deny Jesus his own personality and turn him into a self-satisfying cartoon? The real story is Mr. Gilliam’s rare courage to change, to keep what maters most and junk the cultural affects. Jesus challenged his peers to separate God and Faith from private custom and tribal tradition. Mr. Gilliam seems to understand this. He is a genuine Christian, Jesus, in my opinion would admire him.
— David A Fairbanks · Jun 12, 04:20 PM · #
A good rejoinder, Reticulator. My understanding of Luther’s relationship with Revelation was that he held it in great suspicion, but then saw the propagandistic potential of it by equating the Whore of Babylon with the Pope. Whether one wants to read Genesis as fable or fact is up to the individual. However, I do not want these individuals running school boards or holding political power, particularly with the potential of affecting science. If someone believes in such nonsense as a 6 day creation, he or she cannot be taken as a serious person. Full stop.
— steeffen · Jun 12, 04:40 PM · #
Beautifully put Mr. Fairbanks!
— Matt · Jun 12, 06:35 PM · #
“I don’t disagree with you, but you sound awfully confident that you have a better solution.”
I only meant to be confident in saying: when one forms a world-view or a belief system, it’s pretty ridiculous to continue to ignore the evidence of modern science.
I am not a science-worshipper, not an atheist, nor a materialist.
I am confident that Christianity is not literally true. And that Christianity is intellectually incoherent. And that Christians are unable to answer some very uncomfortable questions.
Once you are forced to admit that at least some of your holy book cannot possibly be true, you’re in a very precarious position. And yet, Christians can’t even say how anyone can know which parts are true, and which parts are not true!
They are reduced to saying things like “the core message is true” or some variation of this, or saying that only the parts about Jesus need to be literally true, but I think we all recognize the desperation in these approaches.
— Socrates · Jun 13, 05:16 PM · #
“Jesus was tormented and then executed by reactionaries frightened by a changed world.”
It sounds like the writer is saying that this actually happened – this part, anyway, is literally true.
I’m still wondering: how do you know which parts actually happened, and which parts are fables?
You can’t know!
But that means it might all be a fable. It would be quite different if there was any evidence to back up Christian claims of truth. You’d think there would be something, anything – but there’s nothing.
(If you have some evidence, let’s hear it.)
— Socrates · Jun 13, 05:42 PM · #
“you sound awfully confident that you have a better solution”
Well, just on this one score, how about “Leaves of Grass” as a holy book instead of the Bible.
You don’t need to take any of it literally. It is pure, beautiful mythology. It doesn’t threaten you with eternal damnation. It doesn’t preach hatred. It delights in love, sex, desire, courage, compassion, nature, existence, in being fully human. It sees all people as equally valuable. It relishes the idea of a creator and an eternal soul.
Stop this day and night with me and you shall possess the origin of all poems,
You shall possess the good of the earth and sun, (there are millions of suns left,)
You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books,
You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me,
You shall listen to all sides and filter them from your self.
— Socrates · Jun 13, 07:10 PM · #
“How do YOU decide what is true? How do YOU know that you can trust your senses, or other people’s, or science, or whatever it is you base your truth system on?”
A child said What is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands;
How could I answer the child? I do not know what it is any more than he.
I guess it must be the flag of my disposition, out of hopeful green
stuff woven.
Or I guess it is the handkerchief of the Lord,
A scented gift and remembrancer designedly dropt,
Bearing the owner’s name someway in the corners, that we may see
and remark, and say Whose?
— Socrates · Jun 13, 09:07 PM · #
“How do YOU decide what is true? How do YOU know that you can trust your senses, or other people’s, or science, or whatever it is you base your truth system on?”
The logical possibility that our senses are systematically deceiving us does not lend credibility to claims of truth or knowledge based on religious faith, divine revelation, sacred scriptures, etc.
If you really thought that no belief is justified (on the grounds that even our senses and our reasoning may be giving us false information), and that there’s therefore no such thing as knowledge, how could you possibly live?
— Joey L · Jun 13, 11:40 PM · #