Comments on: Using the Term “Church 2.0″ Is Lame http://churchcrunch.com/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/ Exploring the Intersection of Web Technology and the Church Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:39:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: human3rrorhttp://churchcrunch.com/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/comment-page-1/#comment-15455 human3rror Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:30:04 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-15455 copy away...! copy away…!

]]> By: Lauren Hunterhttp://churchcrunch.com/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/comment-page-1/#comment-15401 Lauren Hunter Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:21:15 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-15401 Love it! I'm going to repost this on my blog :-) Love it! I'm going to repost this on my blog :-)

]]> By: human3rrorhttp://churchcrunch.com/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/comment-page-1/#comment-15093 human3rror Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:55:07 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-15093 all good. i probably deserved it. all good. i probably deserved it.

]]> By: traeblainhttp://churchcrunch.com/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/comment-page-1/#comment-15092 traeblain Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:47:38 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-15092 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 Tavianohttp://churchcrunch.com/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/comment-page-1/#comment-15090 Gabe Taviano Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:47:15 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-15090 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: human3rrorhttp://churchcrunch.com/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/comment-page-1/#comment-15082 human3rror Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:41:06 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-15082 cutting edge... not lame edge. puaha. cutting edge… not lame edge. puaha.

]]> By: human3rrorhttp://churchcrunch.com/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/comment-page-1/#comment-15081 human3rror Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:41:05 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-15081 always get a kick out of your responses... puahaha. genius. always get a kick out of your responses… puahaha. genius.

]]> By: human3rrorhttp://churchcrunch.com/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/comment-page-1/#comment-15080 human3rror Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:40:06 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-15080 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: traeblainhttp://churchcrunch.com/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/comment-page-1/#comment-15078 traeblain Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:26:30 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-15078 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_Shttp://churchcrunch.com/using-the-term-church-20-is-lame/comment-page-1/#comment-15067 Adam_S Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:11:51 +0000 http://churchcrunch.com/?p=3027#comment-15067 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.

]]>