Internet in your life in the year 2021?

[Sudsy]

Let's do that with COVID also. No masks, social distancing, contact reporting, etc., as none of these things are failproof.
Deal with the heart issue instead.

If one's heart is lead by the Holy Spirit to follow or not follow what is suggested that may save lives, then do as one feels led as we will all stand before God and answer to whether or not we followed the Spirit's guidance or our own or what other's tell us to believe. God knows our real motives and what voice(s) we chose to be guided by. Whatever we do we are to do it as unto the Lord. Right ?

Are you suggesting that perhaps if one's heart is in the right place, the Spirit's guidance might lead us to decline to use internet, or to use filters or accountability systems to limit our exposure to the filth of the web?

Yes, if that is how you hear the voice of the Spirit in how you follow the Lord, then do what the Spirit is guiding you to do. I am agreeing with Jim, if I understand him correctly, that I don't need a list of rules saying I can't do this or that, regardless of their possible good intentions, but rather should rely on being close to the Lord so I can hear His voice above any other voice. It is a heart issue.

I can share how I hear God speaking to me and checking it out with scriptures and especially Jesus example and will be accountable for that. Regarding the protecting ourselves from the world and it's filth the 'coming out from among them and being separate' I believe, as Jesus exampled, is not a physically withdrawal from the world but rather a withdrawal from how unbelievers view life. I believe He gives us power to be in the world and not of it but we are to rely on His power not our own. And in learning to follow Him there may be times when He wants us to 'fast' from things in this world and use that time to listen to Him more closely.

Sometimes, perhaps quite often, we disagree with other believers on how God is leading us in our obedience. When I read other's convictions on how we all should use the Internet or respond to COVID, then I need to check out my convictions with scripture. Sometimes another believers 'convictions' are so contrary to my understandings of God, it is easy to consider them as heretical and I must watch how I respond that it be in a respectful and gentle way. And when they getting into arguing, better to just walk away.

Here is a text that gives us, especially forum discussions, that can really change how we shine our lights to those who read here. Philippians 2:14-16

'In everything you do, stay away from complaining and arguing so that no one can speak a word of blame against you. You are to live clean, innocent lives as children of God in a dark world full of people who are crooked and stubborn. Shine out among them like beacon lights, holding out to them the Word of Life.'

[Simon]

"I don't need a list of rules saying I can't do this or that, regardless of their possible good intentions, but rather should rely on being close to the Lord so I can hear His voice above any other voice. It is a heart issue."

That sounds very spiritual. But is it biblical? Isn't much of the New Testament, instruction to other spirit led Christians on what to do and what not to do? Why didn't Paul just write and tell them to walk in the spirit? Rather he gave very clear instructions on where they were doing wrong and how to correct it. Or maybe he should have just written and told them to get closer to the Lord?! Here are a couple scriptures for you to consider.

Romans 13:1 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
That sounds oddly different from what I hear you promoting.

1 Peter 5:5 - Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
The very definition of submission means we do something someone else tells us to do that we disagree with. If we agreed with it we wouldn't need to submit.

[Sudsy]

"I don't need a list of rules saying I can't do this or that, regardless of their possible good intentions, but rather should rely on being close to the Lord so I can hear His voice above any other voice. It is a heart issue."

That sounds very spiritual. But is it biblical? Isn't much of the New Testament, instruction to other spirit led Christians on what to do and what not to do? Why didn't Paul just write and tell them to walk in the spirit? Rather he gave very clear instructions on where they were doing wrong and how to correct it. Or maybe he should have just written and told them to get closer to the Lord?! Here are a couple scriptures for you to consider.

Romans 13:1 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
That sounds oddly different from what I hear you promoting.

1 Peter 5:5 - Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
The very definition of submission means we do something someone else tells us to do that we disagree with. If we agreed with it we wouldn't need to submit.

Hi Simon, good pushback. I don't mean to 'promote' my views and I'm not taking these points as you promoting yours. Sometimes as we explain ourselves and we have our convictions on something, it can sound like we are persuading others to think like us. Paul could say 'follow me as I follow Christ' but I doubt any of us are as spiritually mature as He was.

First a couple responses to those scriptures. My views. Romans 13:1 was with regard to how a Christians should interact with the governments God puts in place. Unless the government asks us to do something contrary to what God requires of us, we obey God first and foremost. At the same time we should be careful if we go against the government that all scriptures related to the situation is considered and then go as the Spirit leads us.

Regarding 1 Peter 5:5, this text is about humility and again the same principle applies. We are to submit to one another when being instructed unless God instructs us differently. Blind obedience to any church leader over what God requires of us is dangerous. Many church leaders have lead people astray some to the point of killing themselves. In this text I think Peter makes special mention of the younger submitting to the elder as when we are young and growing up we often have a rebelling streak. But then Peter goes on to say 'all of you be subject one to another'. If this means obey each other, I think we would be in a bigger mess than we are now.

When it comes to rules my view is that some well intention believers create rules that are not explicitly in scripture. They say since scripture says do this or do that, as this is how these scriptures are to be practised. Yes, Paul did give some quite clear instructions but Peter also said some of what Paul said was 'hard to understand' and people twisted them to mean something not intended. 2 Peter 3. So, we do 'see through a glass darkly' and not everything is crystal clear.

Paul also said to walk in the Spirit and if we do we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Gal 5: 19-21 'The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.' These are heart issues and we don't correct them through rules but by walking in the Spirit is how I see it. I'm looking forward to the day when all this sort of interpreting ends and we shall know the full truth.

[Simon]

"I don't need a list of rules saying I can't do this or that, regardless of their possible good intentions, but rather should rely on being close to the Lord so I can hear His voice above any other voice. It is a heart issue."

That sounds very spiritual. But is it biblical? Isn't much of the New Testament, instruction to other spirit led Christians on what to do and what not to do? Why didn't Paul just write and tell them to walk in the spirit? Rather he gave very clear instructions on where they were doing wrong and how to correct it. Or maybe he should have just written and told them to get closer to the Lord?! Here are a couple scriptures for you to consider.

Romans 13:1 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
That sounds oddly different from what I hear you promoting.

1 Peter 5:5 - Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
The very definition of submission means we do something someone else tells us to do that we disagree with. If we agreed with it we wouldn't need to submit.

Hi Simon, good pushback. I don't mean to 'promote' my views and I'm not taking these points as you promoting yours. Sometimes as we explain ourselves and we have our convictions on something, it can sound like we are persuading others to think like us. Paul could say 'follow me as I follow Christ' but I doubt any of us are as spiritually mature as He was.

First a couple responses to those scriptures. My views. Romans 13:1 was with regard to how a Christians should interact with the governments God puts in place. Unless the government asks us to do something contrary to what God requires of us, we obey God first and foremost. At the same time we should be careful if we go against the government that all scriptures related to the situation is considered and then go as the Spirit leads us.

Regarding 1 Peter 5:5, this text is about humility and again the same principle applies. We are to submit to one another when being instructed unless God instructs us differently. Blind obedience to any church leader over what God requires of us is dangerous. Many church leaders have lead people astray some to the point of killing themselves. In this text I think Peter makes special mention of the younger submitting to the elder as when we are young and growing up we often have a rebelling streak. But then Peter goes on to say 'all of you be subject one to another'. If this means obey each other, I think we would be in a bigger mess than we are now.

When it comes to rules my view is that some well intention believers create rules that are not explicitly in scripture. They say since scripture says do this or do that, as this is how these scriptures are to be practised. Yes, Paul did give some quite clear instructions but Peter also said some of what Paul said was 'hard to understand' and people twisted them to mean something not intended. 2 Peter 3. So, we do 'see through a glass darkly' and not everything is crystal clear.

Paul also said to walk in the Spirit and if we do we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Gal 5: 19-21 'The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.' These are heart issues and we don't correct them through rules but by walking in the Spirit is how I see it. I'm looking forward to the day when all this sort of interpreting ends and we shall know the full truth.

Thanks for your response. I appreciate your amiable attitude. I desire to respond in meekness and humility as well.

I agree that it is absolutely essential that we are spirit led. I know someone who believed so strongly that we should be spirit led in all aspects of our life that he taped over the dash of his car so he wouldn't be able to see the gauges. He felt that the Lord would tell him what speed to go and when he needed to stop for gas etc. Most people don't take it that far but I think a lot of people take it further than God intends. Some people have reacted to an abuse of church rules and want to say that if it's not explicitly stated in the Bible we shouldn't have a rule about it. Hebrews 13:17 - Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. It seems to me a scripture like this has to be totally disregarded if we follow that teaching to it's logical conclusion.

I'm unclear what your point is concerning What Peter wrote about Paul's writings 2 Pet 3:16 If you are saying that not all of Paul's writings were clear, your point is well taken. However, we should recognize who he said was doing the twisting!

[Sudsy]

"I don't need a list of rules saying I can't do this or that, regardless of their possible good intentions, but rather should rely on being close to the Lord so I can hear His voice above any other voice. It is a heart issue."

That sounds very spiritual. But is it biblical? Isn't much of the New Testament, instruction to other spirit led Christians on what to do and what not to do? Why didn't Paul just write and tell them to walk in the spirit? Rather he gave very clear instructions on where they were doing wrong and how to correct it. Or maybe he should have just written and told them to get closer to the Lord?! Here are a couple scriptures for you to consider.

Romans 13:1 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
That sounds oddly different from what I hear you promoting.

1 Peter 5:5 - Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
The very definition of submission means we do something someone else tells us to do that we disagree with. If we agreed with it we wouldn't need to submit.

Hi Simon, good pushback. I don't mean to 'promote' my views and I'm not taking these points as you promoting yours. Sometimes as we explain ourselves and we have our convictions on something, it can sound like we are persuading others to think like us. Paul could say 'follow me as I follow Christ' but I doubt any of us are as spiritually mature as He was.

First a couple responses to those scriptures. My views. Romans 13:1 was with regard to how a Christians should interact with the governments God puts in place. Unless the government asks us to do something contrary to what God requires of us, we obey God first and foremost. At the same time we should be careful if we go against the government that all scriptures related to the situation is considered and then go as the Spirit leads us.

Regarding 1 Peter 5:5, this text is about humility and again the same principle applies. We are to submit to one another when being instructed unless God instructs us differently. Blind obedience to any church leader over what God requires of us is dangerous. Many church leaders have lead people astray some to the point of killing themselves. In this text I think Peter makes special mention of the younger submitting to the elder as when we are young and growing up we often have a rebelling streak. But then Peter goes on to say 'all of you be subject one to another'. If this means obey each other, I think we would be in a bigger mess than we are now.

When it comes to rules my view is that some well intention believers create rules that are not explicitly in scripture. They say since scripture says do this or do that, as this is how these scriptures are to be practised. Yes, Paul did give some quite clear instructions but Peter also said some of what Paul said was 'hard to understand' and people twisted them to mean something not intended. 2 Peter 3. So, we do 'see through a glass darkly' and not everything is crystal clear.

Paul also said to walk in the Spirit and if we do we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Gal 5: 19-21 'The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.' These are heart issues and we don't correct them through rules but by walking in the Spirit is how I see it. I'm looking forward to the day when all this sort of interpreting ends and we shall know the full truth.

Thanks for your response. I appreciate your amiable attitude. I desire to respond in meekness and humility as well.

I agree that it is absolutely essential that we are spirit led. I know someone who believed so strongly that we should be spirit led in all aspects of our life that he taped over the dash of his car so he wouldn't be able to see the gauges. He felt that the Lord would tell him what speed to go and when he needed to stop for gas etc. Most people don't take it that far but I think a lot of people take it further than God intends. Some people have reacted to an abuse of church rules and want to say that if it's not explicitly stated in the Bible we shouldn't have a rule about it. Hebrews 13:17 - Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. It seems to me a scripture like this has to be totally disregarded if we follow that teaching to it's logical conclusion.

I'm unclear what your point is concerning What Peter wrote about Paul's writings 2 Pet 3:16 If you are saying that not all of Paul's writings were clear, your point is well taken. However, we should recognize who he said was doing the twisting!

Well I just made a lengthy respond and lost it. Anyway, have to go for now, talk later.

[temporal1]

I don't think it is the technology that causes people to sin.

For out of the heart come evil ideas, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

We need to deal with the heart issue, not bans, filters, accountability systems, or other things that can be evaded.

That doesn’t mean you give something harmful and addictive to children.

I think we can outlaw heroin, it’s more than just a “heart issue” of avoiding addictive drugs. .. ..

I agree, filtering is only part of the issue. A bigger issue is the socializing the children get. I would homeschool my children long before having them in that cesspool called public school, no offense to some very good teachers...
The danger of social media is often laughed about but has more risk to the Christian often then many other things we do.

Agreed. You’re best off sending your kids to school where the school agrees not to have students possessing cell phones.

Of course there is immense pressure for youth to get cell phones for “safety”, yet little concern for the serious dangers.

i’m baffled that parents allow smartphones for teens+children.
why not restrict to basic cellphones, NOT phones ATTACHED to full-on computers with cameras?
when i began MD, some were allowing basic cell phones - with camera lenses blocked, scratched off, painted over.

separation of use of these devices could make a world of difference.

Discussions of heart need to be regarding ADULTS, and it’s NOT easy there.
Handing over these devices to children+teens is rotten. “everybody’s doing it” is a problem for adults - maybe moreso than children!

i’m with (former) Vermont SENATOR RODGERS who introduced this important, yet ignored, bill:

https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documen ... oduced.pdf

.. Referred to Committee on
Date:
Subject: Crimes; possession of cell phones by persons under 21 years of age
prohibited
Statement of purpose of bill as introduced:
This bill proposes to prohibit the possession of cell phones by persons under 21 years of age.
An act relating to prohibiting the possession of cell phones by persons under 21 years of age

It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:
Sec. 1. FINDINGS
The General Assembly finds:
(1) The use of cell phones while driving is one of the leading killers of teenagers in the United States. According to the United States Department of Transportation, cell phones are involved in 1.6 million automobile crashes each year, causing half a million injuries and 6,000 deaths. Each day, 11 teenagers die in automobile crashes in this country.

(2) Young people frequently use cell phones to bully and threaten other young people, activities that have been linked to many suicides.

BILL AS INTRODUCED 2020
S.212 Introduced by Senator Rodgers
S.212 Page 1 of 2
VT LEG #344677 v.1

(3) The Internet and social media, accessed primarily through cell phones, are used to radicalize and recruit terrorists, fascists, and other extremists.
(4) Cell phones have often been used by mass shooters of younger ages for research on previous shootings.
(5) In light of the dangerous and life-threatening consequences of cell phone use by young people, it is clear that persons under 21 years of age are not developmentally mature enough to safely possess them, just as the General Assembly has concluded that persons under 21 years of age are not mature enough to possess firearms, smoke cigarettes, or consume alcohol.

Sec. 2. 13 V.S.A. § 1312 is added to read:
§ 1312. POSSESSION OF CELL PHONES BY PERSONS UNDER 21
YEARS OF AGE PROHIBITED
A person under 21 years of age shall not possess, own, or use a cellular telephone.
A person who violates this subsection shall be imprisoned for not more than one year or fined not more than $1,000.00, or both.

Sec. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE
This act shall take effect on passage.

BILL AS INTRODUCED S.212
2020
Page 2 of 2
VT LEG #344677 v.1

This proposal is a good starting place.
Personally, i would differentiate between basic cellphones without cameras - for safety and convenience.
Texting and sexting might remain problems.

Smartphones are sophisticated computers with phones attached. 100% unnecessary.

Smartphones eclipse gun control controversies many times over.
Is there a problem with arming every child and teen with firearms? Yet, smartphones .. “everybody’s doing it.”

https://ballotpedia.org/John_Rodgers_(Vermont)

[temporal1]

He goes further than i, he has some worthwhile points.
(“Comedian” - Some foul language.)

Notice, written in 2019 -
before the pandemic put most of life on the internet: REMOTE everything for everyone - children front+center.

2019 / ’Smartphones are worse than nuclear weapons’: an extract from David Mitchell’s new book.
In this extract from the introduction to the comedian and writer’s new collection of his Observer columns,
he takes on the scourge of modern life
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/ ... cy-extract

.. The trouble is that all that – paying every month for a new invisible thing that means you can never literally and metaphorically switch off, and which has undermined economic norms that have existed for millennia – is the ****** least of it. It’s the mere tip of the technological iceberg along which the good ship Life-As-We-Know-It is scraping its hull.

We haven’t even got to the grooming, the dramatic reversal of the decades-long decline in child abuse, the increasing impossibility of distinguishing truth from lies, the financial degradation of the old-media investigative institutions that used to provide that truth, the bullying, the abuse, the threats of murder and rape, and the incalculable long-term effects of social media, bristling as it is with virtue-signalling, selfies and revenge porn, on all of our brains, particularly those of young people, who have grown up with this technology in its current raw, unregulated form. Plus, people don’t keep appointments any more because they can just text and say they’re running late. It’s all ******* terrible! Who knows what the ultimate outcome of all this will be but, anecdotally at least, it doesn’t look like happiness.

Most insidious of all is the effect on truth. Suddenly it feels so flimsy.
My whole view of existence is predicated on the notion that, in the end, the truth will out. Possibly long after the protagonists of any controversy have died, but eventually, and for the eternal knowledge of posterity. ..

.. No wonder we talk about our online echo chambers, where everyone seems to agree with each other and any transgression from a range of approved views is jumped upon and the transgressor shamed. Social media corrals people into interacting solely with those who share their viewpoint more effectively than the court of Versailles in the last days of the Bourbons.

This already dangerous situation is exacerbated by the fact that the only news, adverts or products that each echo chamber will get to see are specifically designed to attract the attention of its members – and so inevitably to confirm them in their opinions and prejudices.

How else can the censorious and admonitory extreme political correctness of some university campuses coexist in the same world as the unabashed rise of crypto-fascism?

The fact is that, virtually speaking, they don’t exist in the same world.
There is no unified reality, and that really might be a disaster.
Objective truth may always have been unattainable, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth striving for.

If we all just settle into small, mutually ignorant online support groups exchanging comforting half-truths, then civilisation is in for a rough ride. No one will know what is really going on, and working out what is really going on, and working out what is really going on has, for most of history, been humankind’s main purpose. Losing that is a high price to pay for being able to order pizza without speaking to anyone.

[steve-in-kville]

when i began MD, some were allowing basic cell phones - with camera lenses blocked, scratched off, painted over.

Didn't catch this the first time. What is the thinking behind that? Never heard of that one before...

[Josh]

when i began MD, some were allowing basic cell phones - with camera lenses blocked, scratched off, painted over.

Didn't catch this the first time. What is the thinking behind that? Never heard of that one before...

Groups that had not accepted the camera, the digital camera, or messaging photos to each other via phones.

[temporal1]

when i began MD, some were allowing basic cell phones - with camera lenses blocked, scratched off, painted over.

Didn't catch this the first time. What is the thinking behind that? Never heard of that one before...

Groups that had not accepted the camera, the digital camera, or messaging photos to each other via phones.

Thanks, Josh.
i only read about it on MD.
i thought it was a great idea - and i still do.
i recommend it to parents whenever i get the opp. (empower parents!)

(i think) attaching phones ..
to full-on computers WITH cameras has been a major DISASTER for children+teens, the overall culture(s) everywhere.
PARENTS could play a major role in reversing the damage. no law needed. simply by demanding SEPARATION of phones from these other functions - for their dependent minors, including college students.

(i just read of a college in Wyoming that prohibits cellphones on campus.) GOOD IDEA.

basic phones are useful for emergencies AND many useful conveniences.
adding computers+cameras to phones has proven more disastrous than useful. imho.
these added functions have caused documented accidents+deaths. as well as untold psych+social damage.

Parents: No fear. Go for it.