WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Something Light: The 10 Commandments of Christian blogging
Godblogs, a September 23 gathering of Christian bloggers sponsored by the Evangelical Alliance, hammered out some guidelines for Christ-like blogging, ChristianToday.com reports.
Dr Krish Kandiah, Churches in Mission Executive Director at the [Evangelical Alliance], said: “During the Godblogs event, we discussed ideas about how to communicate a code of best practice to evangelical bloggers.”
Here’s what they came up with:
You shall not put your blog before your integrity.
You shall not make an idol of your blog.
You shall not misuse your screen name by using your anonymity to sin.
Remember the Sabbath day by taking one day off a week from your blog.
Honour your fellow-bloggers above yourselves and do not give undue significance to their mistakes.
You shall not murder someone else’s honour, reputation or feelings.
You shall not use the web to commit or permit adultery in your mind.
You shall not steal another person’s content.
You shall not give false testimony against your fellow-blogger.
You shall not covet your neighbour’s blog ranking. Be content with your own content.
Never mind that we bust these around here all the time…What Commandments would you add?
back to top101 Comments to “Something Light: The 10 Commandments of Christian blogging”
You shall not salt another’s blog with incessant astroturf and comment spam.
Report comment as offensive
I find it interesting that no where does it discuss perhaps taking the time to reasearch the materials in the discussion so that you actually know what you might be talking about!
Is willful ignorance less of a sin than outright lieing?
I also find it curious that no thought is given to how one should handle the situation when you are clearly shown to be wrong! The integrity line dances around it but doesn’t address it directly. WMB refers to humility at intervals which somewhat captures the ides. But a realization that we all “sin” and the understanding that we need to ask forgiveness when we “sin” might be a worthy addition.
Report comment as offensive
Well, Musing, I would use a combination of the following two to answer your curiosity:
Honour your fellow-bloggers above yourselves and do not give undue significance to their mistakes.
You shall not murder someone else’s honour, reputation or feelings.
But perhaps you need to “win.”
Report comment as offensive
NJLawyer post 3,
I am happy to lose when the facts clearly show differently than I have understood or believed! And when I am found wrong, I try ot apologize.
It is only from mistakes that one truly learns.
Or an alternative model which was driven home by the VP of R&D I used to work for: we only learn from experiments which fail.
But if it is argued there is a mistake, could it perhaps be based on factual data or sound logical reasoning?
Report comment as offensive
NJLawyer,
and as lawyer you don’t need to win?
But more correctly, what I want to win are:
1) sounds substantiated facts on which to base the discussion
2) reasoned arguments based on these facts
All too often it seems we tolerate what is nothing less than willful ignorance in the mistatments made on this blog.
Report comment as offensive
So the poster child of willful ignorance in the recent past would seem to be the post suggesting giving $425,000 to every person over 18 in the U.S. as an altenrative to the bailout.
Simple math checks which anyone with a 6th grade education (it requires long division) can perform show that this number is seriously in error.
It was posted with an assertion of correctness and when challenged never repudiated or marked with an apo0logy.
This is quite simply willful ignorance AND it pollutes and contaminates the discussion with incorrect and misleading assertions.
Quite simply this is a disservice to everyone reading this blog. It also does not speak well for the quality of thought and care in selection of data used for reaching our conclusions in this blog.
Report comment as offensive
Musing: You shall not be so proud of your intelligence that you belittle fellow bloggers.
Report comment as offensive
When responding to a blogger, ask for information. Do not make assumptions. Don’t assume that someone is wrong for saying what they say. We can’t possibly play god and think we know enough about someone else and have the right to determine that a person is in the wrong for talking about what that person finds important.
Report comment as offensive
You shall not argue ad hominem or ad populum . Neither shall you set up straw men.
You shall not make more than two consecutive posts.
You shall not blog under offensive screen names.
You shall not blog while someone is paying you to do something else.
Report comment as offensive
outkast post 7,
where have I commented on the intelligence of a fellow blogger?
I have, as described in the guidelines, seriously attacked a clearly discredited and false post.
I also note that this false post can easily be checked for validity and this presumably was not done.
No where have I made any suggestion on the motives for such an incorrect and misleading post: I have not criticized the poster. I have made major criticisms of the post.
But good try Outkast: you seem overly sensitive on this comment.
Report comment as offensive
reg post 8,
gee reg, whenever I ask for defintions so I can make sure I understand what the posters means, there are cries of derision from certain sectors of this blog.
When I ask for supporting data and references for assertions, there are cries of derision from certain sectors of this blog.
If we are to understand the other, the other must be willing to explain. If the other refuses to explain, no conversation is possible.
Report comment as offensive
You shall not take yourself too seriously. Blogging is a very low risk/low yield activity and should be treated as such.
Report comment as offensive
I have not criticized the poster.
poster child of willful ignorance
Report comment as offensive
outkast post 13,
yes - the post demonstrates willful ignorance BUT is the poster willfully ignorant? There are a variety of possiblities here and I do not presume to know the intent or motives of the poster.
I have, however, commented on the post very negatively.
If the poster feels that this is a negative comment on them, then I suggest that the poster may perhaps have personalized the post too much.
The post is open season.
The poster is not.
No where have I criticized the poster, but I believe I have been, with reasonable justification, moderately scathing regarding the post.
But do look at my responding posts no this issue in the original thread: I specifically asked the originasl poster if they perhaps had not made an arithmatic error or if perhaps I had somehow misunderstood them. The poster specifically did not respond to my two sets of requests for clarification.
Now there is no requirment for a poster to respond to any post.
Nor will I can I draw any conclusion from the lack of a response.
But the lack of clarification after two requests for clarification does perhaps grant me more lattitude in criticizing the quality of the post.
And I am more than happy to criticize this facutally erroneous and highly misleading post.
Report comment as offensive
As an aside, if I find a truly egregiously erroneous post which I intend to use as an example in one aspect of the discussion or another, I usually try to give the original poster the opportunity to correct it, clarify it, or retract it.
If after several queries for clarification, the poster insists on letting the originla post stand, then I consider it open season.
Am I always perfect in this? Probably not.
If someone clarifies their point latter will I attewmpt to consider their new positon: usually I hope.
But if I do give you several chances on clarifiing or refining a post and you do not choose to correct it, then I suggest that that post is now fair game.
Such was the case with the $425K post.
Report comment as offensive
1. Thou shalt swallow thy pride and apologize even when thou think thou are right.
2. Thou shalt leave another blogger alone when they ask you to.
3. Thou shalt refrain from setting thyself up as a final authority on any matter.
4. Thou shalt follow the rules of the blog both in spirit and the letter.
5. Thou shalt stick to the topic or issue and not use it as an opportunity to settle a personal dispute or inflame a conflict with another blogger.
6. Thou shalt refrain from attempting to intimidate, silence, or cause another blogger to leave the site.
7. Thou shalt remember that this blog is open and welcoming to all equally if they abide by the rules set forth.
8. Thou shalt remember that this blog is read by many people, in many countries, from many backgrounds and beliefs.
9. Thous shalt remember that thy words can hurt or heal, anger or sooth, judge or empathize, alienate or increase understanding.
10. Before thou posteth, thou shalt think “What would Lynn Vincent do?”.
Sadly, I have broken many of those myself.
Report comment as offensive
thou shalt not blog with musings and their ilk if you want to remain sane
Report comment as offensive
Anlir, your #3. I am the final authority on what I like. When I was a kid, dad (& others) used to say, “You don’t know what’s good”. Or, “You like her!”
I’m the world’s authority on what’s good.
Report comment as offensive
Musing, only in a courtroom! And I don’t go there often.
Other than that, I’m pretty easygoing. I figure you’ll come around to my way of thinking sooner or later.
Report comment as offensive
Tell the truth. Do not misuse statistics, cherry-pick data, or otherwise use misleading information to make your point. Do not misquote others or take their statements out of context in a way which makes them appear to hold a view which is not theirs.
When you discover (or have pointed out to you) that you have made a mistake, admit it, apologize for the error, and correct it so that future blog visitors will have the correct information.
Use the blog to promote ideas, not yourself.
Oppose the ideas of others where you think they are wrong, but do not attack the other people themselves. Remember that our true enemies are not other people but spiritual powers (Eph. 6)
Do not post others’ ideas as your own, or post copyrighted material without permission (except to the extent normally allowed in any other form of writing).
Do not let blogging turn you away from direct personal interaction with people around you, distracting you from their needs, or from your need for those relationships.
Remember to look for the good and for laughter. There is much that is serious in this world that needs serious attention, but there is also much that is good to celebrate, and everyone needs some laughter in their lives.
Don’t try to get that laughter by making fun of others.
Remember to give thanks to God for the mind He gave you to think and to blog with, and for the amazing technology He enabled other minds to create, that lets us do this thing called blogging.
Whatever you do, on-blog or off-blog, do all to the glory of God.
Report comment as offensive
NJLawyer post 19,
ah so you do enjpy and work at winning when on the field of ideas!
By contrast with your comment about being easy going (permit me some sketicism here based on our discussions !
), I tend not to be easy going in any of my activities: this is one of the reasons I like mountaineering. 
But then there will always be differences and these differences between people are critical to nurture if our world is to be suiccessful.
Report comment as offensive
No, Musing. You are neither quite as cerebral (and logical) nor your opponents quite as idiotic (and irrational) as you would like to pretend. A common vice (or affliction) of the left is to be unable to view oneself objectively.
Your idea of a compelling argument is to a) present some data presumably in line with your known political/social/cultural/religious views, b) pompously editorialize about it while ignoring or discounting any contradictory data, and c) then stick a goofy yellow leering hobgoblin face at the end of your post (and sometimes sprinkling these faces throughout your message).
Oh, yes. And when backed into a corner, you begin (like a squid in the ocean furiously pumping an inky black cloud behind it as it flees a predator) to frantically parse the exact meaning of words like ‘dog’ and ‘is’ and ‘a’.
At this point, of course, most ordinary human beings engaged in conversation with you give up in disgust and shuffle wearily away, vowing to shave their heads and join a monastery (or a nunnery) located in some desolate remote inaccessible wasteland, and renounce all connections with the human race, such as it is.
I should know. Even now I sit in a loin-cloth on a sun-baked rock in the Sahara Desert (in front of my narrow little cave, you know), picking fleas off my scalp and putting them one by one into a little worn depression in the rock. For my dessert, you know. I splurge that way, once a week.
Report comment as offensive
Pauline post 20,
hear hear!!!
Report comment as offensive
An aside that will not make me popular (but in the Sahara popularity is not all that important):
Regards the ‘face’ things that people use too frequently in their posts: It seems to me that they are the equivalent of someone making a face at you in an actual conversation.
So, say you are talking to someone about the weather:
“My,” You say (trying to make conversation). “It certainly looks like rain.”
“NO.” The other person says. “There is no chance of rain today, you complete moron.”
Then, quite suddenly and unaccountably, they lean forward and thrust their face directly in front of your own. Their face transforms and becomes a large yellow leering cartoonish circle of a face obscenely winking and vigorously masticating its jaws. Sometimes it even turns different colors like purple and red and the eyeballs bulge out – maybe even the tongue protrudes and waggles at you.
Then quite as suddenly, the face reorganizes and recedes, the person withdraws and continues as calmly with his (or her) speech as though nothing extraordinary had happened.
Anyway, it is unsettling to gentle sensitive spirits such as me.
I am sorry. It just is.
Report comment as offensive
Drill post 22,
hmm, I don’t believe I have ever argued that I am cerebral.
I do argue that my facts tend to be sound, and if they are not correct, call me on it with references please. Do you have specific examples where my facts are in error?
I do find it amusing at times that posters here can at times be so “elastic” with thier language.
My recent favorites are marxist and socialist: niether of which, based on repeated request for clarification, does it appear that typical posters using these terms understand their meaning. So yup when you use language imprecisely to try to make your point I will indeed insist that you clearly define your terms or quite literally I suggest you do not know what you are talking about.
Report comment as offensive
Drill post 24,
you do seem to be highly focused on and sensitive to matters of style!
Report comment as offensive
Oh, Musing. I refuse to be drawn into your linguistic blender today. I have to go back into my cave and lie down on my bed of nails and broken glass.
But God will surely forgive me this one tiny transgression (perhaps if I flog myself extra hard tonight?):
A Marxist is a follower or adherent of the political/social philosophy or ideology of Marx. Now there are degrees of adherence, no doubt. Imagine that. A Marxist is a follower of Marx. Wonder where THAT came from?
A Socialist is a sort of squeamish Marxist, Musing.
You did not ask but a Leninist is a person who is involved in the practical application (hence elastic adaptation) of the theories of Marx.
And finally (you did not ask) but a Stalinist is a person who understands that the whole thing is a crock anyway and is useful only as a vehicle to ultimate power over humanity (Statism).
Report comment as offensive
Good list, Anlir.
Remember that all you say and do someday will be shouted from the rooftops–so be careful with your words.
Remember you don’t know any of your fellow bloggers, with some exceptions, so presume nothing about them or their motives.
Assume all the other posters are as talented, beautiful, spiritual, smart and charming as you are . . .
Report comment as offensive
#16: Anlir, I like your list.
I would add one more: You shall not be drunk with power on your blog. An no one better accuse me of this, or I shall crush you.
Report comment as offensive
Re: #22
A common vice (or affliction) of the left is to be unable to view oneself objectively.
So how are those of us on the left supposed to respond to that kind of sweeping attack (not to mention the other unfair and hypocritical characterizations in the post)?
Report comment as offensive
Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Or NOT…
You can just tell part of it to serve your own argument.
Report comment as offensive
Re: #30.
So how are those of us on the left supposed to respond to that kind of sweeping attack (not to mention the other unfair and hypocritical characterizations in the post)?
Excellent question.
I would suggest genuine heart-felt contrition and some sort of penance, vigorously and enthusiastically inflicted. I will think about exactly what that penance should be, if you really want me to.
I am quite good at thinking up appropriately novel, innovative and interesting penances, most especially for other people.
Report comment as offensive
TJ Very funny!!!!!
Anlir- good list.
How about this, Thou shall act like adults.
I do not post often to this blog, but I do read the posts often(some are very funny and others are not).
My daughter has to participate in blogs as part of our homeschool group. These kids do not always agree and there have been times when a few blogers have “flamed” others or otherwise been unkind. Here is the difference, they call one another on it(nicely) the offender owns up to it and they all move on. They exchange ideas and values.
Report comment as offensive
TJ-LOL
Anlir- nice list
How about thou shallt not treat teenagers as thee’s inferiors.
or
Thou shallt not nitpick peoples grammer.
Report comment as offensive
I would suggest genuine heart-felt contrition and some sort of penance, vigorously and enthusiastically inflicted.
Well, I will give Drill style points for humor, because that response is unbelievably hilarious.
Three words in response:
Not. Gonna. Happen.
I do however, have a proposal, which I shall discuss after lunch.
BBL
Report comment as offensive
16-
again, Anlir’s ability to show what an abusive person is like is unsurpassed. I am being serious. We have some talented people here, talented in the behaviors of abuse, that is. Anlir’s contribution is a great service to the readers, thank you! Thanks for spelling it out.
Report comment as offensive
Musing: Style IS important, you know.
Not to brag but I am quite good at it.
For instance I know exactly how many buttons to leave unbuttoned on my overalls (when wearing a tshirt, of course!).
And I know just the angle a John Deere hat should be canted at, on my head.
I also know that I should remove my boots before taking a nap on the sofa. (But I hardly ever do that since style should never supercede personal convenience.)
Also, to be properly stylish in matters of civility, I should remark that I am very glad you post on WMB, by the way.
My complaint about the horrible yellow hobgoblin faces people sprinkle about in their posts is simply a personal pet peeve - you are merely one offender (and hardly the worst) in a vast sea of offenders of all stripes and persuasions. So don’t take it personally.
Report comment as offensive
TJ - Oh, I don’t know… You seem like a rather benevolent dictator.
(Sorry Drill)
Report comment as offensive
Post 35 (Anlir):
Penance would do wonders for you, Anlir.
Well, in the cloying spirit of civility that is settling like a noxious fog over this thread, I would admit that I generally like YOU too, except for your obnoxious penchant for making and posting interminably long lists, mostly of things that are wrong, but what the heck - at least you show actual industry, which is getting hard to find, right or left, these days.
Well, actually making lists is okay, too. It reminds me of my dear Great Aunt who would (literally) make lists of her lists.
Her very last list was a carefully constructed list of the arrangements and details regarding her own funeral, believe it or not.
For some reason that seemed strangely futile to me, at the time.
Report comment as offensive
Drill post 27,
well your definiton here is very good:
“A Marxist is a follower or adherent of the political/social philosophy or ideology of Marx. Now there are degrees of adherence, no doubt. Imagine that. A Marxist is a follower of Marx. ”
I can state then quite comfortably that effectively none of the American politicians running for national office this year (there may perhaps be a house member here and there) are Marxists.
It would then help if we purged this term from our vocabularies here: it is by your definition incorrect AND it is inflamatory with no explanatory content.
Thanks for being so clear, and I assume we can mover forward honestly based on this crisp defintiion.
Report comment as offensive
Drill post 27,
actually I will disagree on this point:
“You did not ask but a Leninist is a person who is involved in the practical application (hence elastic adaptation) of the theories of Marx.’
I suggest a Leninst a a follower of the general tenets of Marx but who argues that the revolution can come from the agrarian class, not just the industrial working class.
Both believe in the model of the end of the historical dialectic.
And again I suggest that there are no Leninist in national office and we can also remove this term from our vocabularies on this discussion group.
Report comment as offensive
Drill post 37,
one can argue the importance fo style all day and it makes for an interesting discussion.
I personally find the quality of ideas, the depth of factual evidence and logic supporting them, and quality of the analysis of key import.
these can to some extent be evaluated objectviely (facts and logic are easily checked for example).
Style by contrast is in the eye of the beholder and I find arguments over taste to be a subject of much conversation but little real impact.
Report comment as offensive
Rather than arguing over who is more or less objectvie, it probably helps to recast the question as follows:
1) who has the most relaible and sustainable facts
2) has the analysis of these facts been performed in a reasonably rigorous manner
These can be nearly objecively evaluated and more critically any individual can examine the arguments and conclude for themselves whihc arguments are most valid.
And amusingly this bbecomes a multreentrant transaction: we can also evaluate the quality of analysis based on individuals comments on the quality of analysis!
Report comment as offensive
I personally find the quality of ideas, the depth of factual evidence and logic supporting them, and quality of the analysis of key import.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
You made my day Musing!
Report comment as offensive
Actually, Musing, I hate to have to get off my bed of nails and broken glass, laboriously crawl out of my cave (rubbing scabs off the whole way), reposition myself on my sun-baked and extremely hot rock, and disagree with you yet again, but I suppose duty beckons.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden are indisputably, by my definition, Socialists, hence squeamish Marxist-Leninists. One can argue intelligently (or unintelligently) about the exact DEGREE of how Marxist-Leninist they are, of course. But that they are definitionally speaking Marxist-Leninists is, as noted, unquestionable. One could also even impute a smattering of Marxism/Leninism to John McCain and Sarah Palin as well, to be technically correct.
After all, many of the major rails/institutions in this country (Social Security/Medicare/Welfare/Fed Reserve/Progressive Income Tax/Etc.) were called for in the Socialist/Communist (Marxist-Leninist) Party platform in this country, say one hundred years or so ago.
Now with the ‘bailout’ - provided it happens as the Democrats want, and it probably will - we are basically seeing the direct nationalization of the financial sector, i.e. achieving yet another key Socialist (Marxist-Leninist) goal. So in that sense, those who push for it whether they acknowledge it or not are Marxist-Leninist.
You may not LIKE the term, but that is neither here nor there.
Report comment as offensive
Thou shalt not turn “Something Light” into a micturating competition.
Report comment as offensive
Drill post 45,
now I will ask you for your defintion of socialist.
by your definiton of Marxist-Leninist it would appear that they clearly do not fit. I have provided clear cokmponents of marism and Leninism which they do not appear to espouse.
So it would seem that either your defintion is wrong or that you are misusing the words.
So if you insist on this position, then I will reask you for your definition. It would seem that your earlier one does not match what you really mean.
Report comment as offensive
And both Marx and Lenin called for the right of the workers to vote!
So anyone espousing democracy is a Marxist-Leninist?
You are making a classic logical error:
A => B
does not mean that
B => A
Or all cows are green does not mean that if you are green you are a cow.
Report comment as offensive
Musing,
‘Or all cows are green does not mean that if you are green you are a cow.’
Are you green?
Report comment as offensive