The Internet: 2015
2011 June 8
A stunning visual display of the changes we might anticipate in the next few years:
Digital Life: Today & Tomorrow from Neo Labels on Vimeo.
Jim Gilliam – “The Internet Is My Religion.” “Growing up I had two loves: Jesus and the internet. . . .”
pdf2011 on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free
14 Responses
leave one →
Enjoyed the watching Jim Gilliam video, but his main point struck me as rather humanistic. That may be because I’m knee deep in the book of Isaiah this week, but I am curious what others think.
Wes – Absolutely. I’ve heard several stories of “faith” similar to his in the past couple years. And I’m struck by how his words seem to resonate with this large audience yesterday.
Thanks for posting this … I have a suspicion that I am becoming a techno-dinosaur.
“God is what happens when humanity is connected. Humanity connected is God.”
This bothers me. Humanity connected can be a reflection of God or it can be a great force for evil. God is so much bigger than we are or could ever be, yet that same God chose to be represented to humanity through us, to use our flaws as well as our strengths to open the hearts of mankind to God.
I, too, am startled by the way it seems to resonate with the people in the audience.
The Internet isn’t my religion. It’s a tool — and a marvelous one. But the interconnectedness of the people of God — we share a bond that unites us with people we’ll never meet (or even email/text with). Jesus isn’t what happens when I turn on my laptop.
I worry about this kind of message and the reception it receives. “Itching ears,” I guess. I worry that we’re replacing God with a shiny idol that reflect a distortion of only us.
His story is unfinished. The threads of death bringing life and the internet bringing connectedness are just threads. I hope some day, they’ll be woven together for him in a way that makes him realize God is greater than either of those — and greater than he is or could ever be.
Jim Gilliam was truly inspiring! Thank you for posting both of these videos. Humanity is headed to a new place . . . fast.
Wes, since you asked what “others think” (and I am one of those), here goes my answer. Gilliam’s talk was certainly humanistic. But we are all humanistic. On the surface, many will deny it, but when any of us gets sick, we may say a prayer, but we go immediately to meet with people with advanced science degrees (doctors). We don’t care if they are Hindu or Muslim, as long as they know the healing arts. When we need to move mountains, we don’t pray–we call someone with a human-designed-and-built machine (bulldozer) that can literally–not figuratively–move mountains. This new world that we are creating is allowing us to do things that make the miracles of the Bible seem trivial. And by the way, there is no evidence whatsoever for any of those miracles, and they certainly aren’t being done today (perhaps they were metaphors). I’m not trying to belittle religious faith, but some kind of religious reformation–a new interpretation–is needed for humanity to deal with our creation. And if the singularity is really near? Oh my!
“Together, we are THE Creator…”
Really?
Q – Love the simplicity of your words: “His story is unfinished.”
I felt myself drawn to Jim Gilliam’s passionate message; I loved his description of how three DNAs run through his body and of how people connected through the internet to help save him; and I’ve learned in the last two years to love human stories.
However . . . there is a faith that is richer than the one he knew growing up . . . and there is One who is beyond all of our glimpses of connectedness. Sharing that truth has become my own passion.
By the way, Martin: thanks for joining the discussion! You’ve raised significant questions.
I’m glad you posted this.
Jim’s story is amazing, and his passion is undeniable, but no matter what we might go through, we must be careful about some of our conclusions. I am not “the Creator,” though I am to shine His light in a dark world.
We are to SHOW God to each one we meet, but we must never become so sure of ourselves that we start to claim that we ARE God. We, no matter what we do, are far, far, far from His holiness and perfect purity.
However tragic, and this young man’s story IS tragic, scripture never presents the suffering of nonbelievers as something to be admired or remarkable. Countless millions of BELIEVERS in our Lord Jesus have suffered over the centuries; suffered as the Body of Christ; suffered as the continuation of the Incarnation; suffering on behalf of the world, “filling up that which is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.” And these countless millions have refused, just like their Lord refused, to claim that “God had forsaken them.” THAT is the Story that scripture views as remarkable and admirable. This young man’s construal of his story is a novelty because he links it with the internet (not to mention, his new “god”). His suffering is not unique and his linking of it with the internet should not be viewed as adding depth or deserving of a greater audience. He denied God because of his suffering. That’s neither new nor admirable.
“This new world that we are creating is allowing us to do things that make the miracles of the Bible seem trivial.”
I believe Jesus raised his friend Lazarus from the dead – dead, as in wrapped in burial clothes and entombed. That’s pretty impressive.
I’m certainly sympathetic to his point of view given his particular circumstances. But, his circumstances are fairly unique in the big picture. He’s no doubt a remarkably intelligent individual who relied on equally intelligent and prosperous people (friends, doctors, etc.) at a world class institution to escape death. The vast majority of people in the world facing a similar situation would be left in the cold. How does the religion of the internet speak to that?
Off Topic:
Excellent narrative-type sermon at the Branch, Mike. No moralizing; just good, life-shaping story-telling. Great (very brief) summary of the New Perspective on Paul in the first ten minutes, as well. We need more preachers to tell us lay-people what the scholars are saying.
There is much to be gained from considering ‘community’ as a organizing principle in constructing (or deconstructing) theology. Stanley Grenz attempted it, and I think with some success in his “Theology for the Community of God.”
Trinitarian theology is very concerned with community, especially in constructions favoring social Trinitarian models.
This all sounds rather academic, but in the end it is a recognition of the one ‘not good’ thing found in all of God’s creation–it is not good for man (i.e. humans) to be alone.
I think Mike is right, human story is important. Thanks for sharing.