Comments on: Using the Term “Church 2.0″ Is Lame http://churchm.ag/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/ Exploring the Intersection of Church and Technology Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:25:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: human3rror http://churchm.ag/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/#comment-47201 human3rror Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:30:04 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-47201 copy away...! copy away…!

]]> By: Lauren Hunter http://churchm.ag/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/#comment-47200 Lauren Hunter Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:21:15 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-47200 Love it! I'm going to repost this on my blog :-) Love it! I'm going to repost this on my blog :-)

]]> By: human3rror http://churchm.ag/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/#comment-47199 human3rror Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:55:07 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-47199 all good. i probably deserved it. all good. i probably deserved it.

]]> By: traeblain http://churchm.ag/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/#comment-47198 traeblain Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:47:38 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-47198 No problem!! (BTW...I monkey clicked and voted down your comment...sorry!) No problem!!

(BTW…I monkey clicked and voted down your comment…sorry!)

]]> By: Gabe Taviano http://churchm.ag/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/#comment-47197 Gabe Taviano Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:47:15 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-47197 I agree with the Church 43.2 talk, that makes more sense. But I do believe that there does have to be a Church that is using Web 2.0. So maybe calling it Church 2.0 sounds a bit tacky, but if you dig beneath the skin of the message, I think people using it might have the right focus. Do you have any examples of people using the term the wrong way? The way that makes you spew on your blog? I agree with the Church 43.2 talk, that makes more sense. But I do believe that there does have to be a Church that is using Web 2.0. So maybe calling it Church 2.0 sounds a bit tacky, but if you dig beneath the skin of the message, I think people using it might have the right focus. Do you have any examples of people using the term the wrong way? The way that makes you spew on your blog?

]]> By: human3rror http://churchm.ag/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/#comment-47196 human3rror Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:41:06 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-47196 cutting edge... not lame edge. puaha. cutting edge… not lame edge. puaha.

]]> By: human3rror http://churchm.ag/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/#comment-47195 human3rror Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:41:05 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-47195 always get a kick out of your responses... puahaha. genius. always get a kick out of your responses… puahaha. genius.

]]> By: human3rror http://churchm.ag/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/#comment-47194 human3rror Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:40:06 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-47194 dude. you made me LOL hard that i almost woke up my daughter.<br />thanks for that.<br /><br />;) dude. you made me LOL hard that i almost woke up my daughter.
thanks for that.

;)

]]> By: traeblain http://churchm.ag/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/#comment-47193 traeblain Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:26:30 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-47193 I would think we are some where around 1##.33156.## ...and here's why. You see fairly "radical" changes in the cutting edge church structures ever 20 years or so, which would imply we are somewhere in the 100s as far as major releases. Then there are roughly 33000+ (I pulled the above number out of thin air) different "protestant" denominations, therefore they all cannot be at the same level. Lastly I figure each of those denominations are at some different level in "newness" that can most likely be categorized in the double digits...I think I completely missed the point of this post... I would think we are some where around 1##.33156.## …and here's why. You see fairly "radical" changes in the cutting edge church structures ever 20 years or so, which would imply we are somewhere in the 100s as far as major releases. Then there are roughly 33000+ (I pulled the above number out of thin air) different "protestant" denominations, therefore they all cannot be at the same level. Lastly I figure each of those denominations are at some different level in "newness" that can most likely be categorized in the double digits…I think I completely missed the point of this post…

]]> By: Adam_S http://churchm.ag/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/#comment-47192 Adam_S Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:11:51 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-47192 Maybe we are in Church 43.2 but certainly not at 2.0. Church 2.0 was probably Antioch with gentile Christians. Maybe we are in Church 43.2 but certainly not at 2.0. Church 2.0 was probably Antioch with gentile Christians.

]]>