Blog: Faithfully Online

    Why do we dislike the word “censorship” and love the word “freedom?” There are certainly many answers to this question, but I think one aspect is that no one likes being forced to do anything – or told we can’t do an activity. Even when we know that some action is right or the even the best choice, we don’t want others coercing us. We want the freedom to choose it.  Of course, this includes online surfing.

Check out these words from a recent Christian song by Jason Gray:

“Give me rules - I will break them. Give me lines - I will cross them. I need more than a truth to believe. I need a truth that lives, moves, and breathes - To sweep me off my feet.”

It shouldn’t be surprising when we revolt at online “censorship” – and not just for Christians in select third-world countries. Why?

Our sinful natures like to test boundaries. More than that, we want to volunteer and not be drafted into service. We love our freedoms and ability to choose. Anything else seems “un-American” and “un-Christian.”

True, we want to be “protected” and “kept safe.” However, if we are honest about accountability and transparency, we realize that one person’s filter is another person’s censorship. The words we use to describe online challenges and solutions are very important.

I’ve been managing technology staff for two decades in the public sector. More than that, I oversee the networks supporting tens of thousands of government customers who know right from wrong online. Still, they choose to do the wrong things fairly often. They regularly violate policies and procedure and more. They may even “mean well,” but surfing patterns can get out of control and staff need to be disciplined. The phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" rings true.

Not to let my private sector colleagues off too easy – this is not just a government employee problem. It is just as bad or worse in the private sector and in homes across the world. (Yes, I know this from multiple, reliable sources.) I’ve also spoken at homeschool conferences and various churches to a variety of audiences regarding Christian online conduct. I have interacted with Mom’s and Dads, teens and kids, young and old. (You can see several of my presentations at: http://netsafetyresources.com/videos/ )

The simple truth is that people are struggling in cyberspace. More policies and workplace edicts will not solve this problem. (On the other hand, we do need clear, concise policies at work to articulate the appropriate ways to use new technologies like smart phones at work. We do need to hold staff accountable, which means we do need lines.) Still, this is only a part of the overall solution for Internet Safety at home and work. Rules and censorship alone will never work in the long run - since people will revolt.  

Who is right?

 So am I siding with the Internet Libertarians? Not fully. I think they underestimate the global problems and nature of the Internet. I believe our governments have important roles to play in stopping organized crime, enforcing laws and providing a safe, reliable online experience. However, I do think Libertarians correctly point out the limitations and over-reach that can occur with too much government intervention or on reliance in government.

Am I siding with Socialists who say this is all going to be fixed with more government intervention and controls? Not! Government can never solve this problem alone. Personal responsibility is paramount. But I do think that government can (and is) providing helpful online protections from online thieves, child molesters and Internet stalkers. There are global Internet problems that are much more complex than most people realize, and we need governments around the world working together to offer appropriate law enforcement on our digital highways and not just our physical highways (roads).  

Do I side with the free-market entrepreneurs trying to offer packaged solutions that are easy to use? Yes, please send us more answers, better tools and technology to protect us and allow us to surf our values. Security and privacy online are growing problems, and we need new solutions. Still, technology alone will not solve this problem. There will always be ways to use technology for evil. (Remember that we've had bank robbers for hundreds of years despite new technology.)  

Do I side with pastors who preach against cyber lust and other online sins? Yes again. As a Christian, I think that Internet conduct (or cyber ethics) begins as a heart issue. It starts with your worldview and authentic, Biblical values.

What do you really believe? Overcoming temptation must include a bottom-up process that starts with individuals. Few Internet or security “experts” in the field want to acknowledge this part of the problem.   

 Still, as a society, there are many aspects of online life that are out of control for well-meaning Christians who start off with their “hearts in the right place.” I have discussed cyber ethics and related Internet behaviors with several men who believe that Internet accountability and solutions regarding technology and process are overblown. They feel that if your heart is right, you don’t need anything else. They basically ignore the technology and process sides of the equation.

I disagree with this heart-only approach. Why? Verse four from the famous hymn “Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing” says it better than I can:

O to grace how great a debtor
Daily I’m constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,
Bind my wandering heart to Thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;
Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above.

  Our hearts are prone to wander. We are sinners who are easily deceived. God has given us family and friends to help us overcome sinful habits. He has also given us technology to help – just as He has given us the Internet as a tool to get things done.

 I've asked some of these men if they ever fall to temptation online? "Yes, but I just repent and move on."

 I think this approach lacks the required depth of analysis and adequate protections to be successful (for the majority of people) in the long-run.

What to do?  

 OK, so what words can we use if we don’t want to say “censorship” or “Internet freedom?” I prefer “Opting-In to Online Integrity.” Or, Surf Your Values. We need to implement the Seven Habits of Online Integrity.

No doubt, some will think I am just pushing concepts in my book. However, Virtual Integrity is now out of print, and there is no personal financial gain for me to say these things. The truth is that I want to help your family achieve victory in this online battle that will last for the rest of our lives.

Bottom line - We need "all hands on deck" to solve these complex Internet problems. Avoid the extreme positions. Solutions require answers that cover people, processes and technology - together. Yes, that means government can help. But more importantly, churches, families and passionate individuals need to stay engaged and “work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”

On a personal level - we need new hearts, transformed lives. We need a Redeemer. Like Jason Gray sings, we need to “fall in love” with the right person – Jesus Christ. That will motivate change in our behaviors – including the processes and technology we use each and every day. 

Our God is our creator who knows our needs – and our vulnerabilities. When we are tempted – there will be a way out.  We also have a Savior who will forgive us when we turn our backs on Him, if we sincerely repent. Knowing God is life-changing – even in cyberspace.        

 A few weeks back I addressed the question: Can Christians Balance Online Freedom, Personal Responsibility, Technology Adoption and Government Action/Regulation in Cyberspace?  I started with the Libertarian approach – which basically wants the government out of the Internet safety role altogether. This blog will look at the other end of the spectrum and discuss government action in cyberspace – which is currently fairly extensive.

 At a basic level, this topic is straight-forward. The vast majority of Americans agree that the government needs to be involved in combating online crime (with 243 million Google-search results), stopping child porn and helping with cyber safety training. Indeed, this US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website proclaims that cybersecurity is our shared responsibility – and many helpful links are provided from the public and private sector.

Readers of my CSO Magazine and Government Technology Magazine blogs (Lohrmann on Infrastructure & Lohrmann on GovSpace) over the past four years will be very familiar with the numerous aspects of this topic related to online government. The technology and security space that I cover often relates to Internet safety and cyber ethics as well. Since I am a government Chief Technology Officer (CTO), many readers will probably think I am biased in the government intervention direction as well. And yet, I often discuss the limitations associated with “top down” enforcement of policies and laws. As described in my book, I strongly believe that a changed heart is where we must begin to be effective online as Christians in the long run. While I cannot deny bias, my book leans heavily on personal responsibility and accountability.

 So why does government need to be involved online – at all? Put simply, the scope of the global problem. I’ve been quoted several times as saying that online crime can be compared to the mafia’s activity in Chicago in the 1930s. Articles like this one are common which point to scams, online fraud, increased hacking by organized criminals, and the global trafficking of children using the Internet.     

Put another way, why do we need police on our roads? (If you have recent speeding tickets, you may wish you didn’t see another police car.) As we move more money into online banks, the bad guys will inevitably move further into cyberspace. With the merging of offline and online life, won’t we be replicating the same interactions in cyberspace that we have in the “real world?” Won’t the same protections and safeguards be required? So is it a surprise that our federal government seeks stronger online privacy protection for children?

 While most readers may feel fine with the government helping to stop hackers and bank robbers, some readers will no doubt want no government involvement with the Internet in my house, if I’m not breaking any laws. OK, now were getting into the gray areas. We need to start defining right and wrong behaviors online. We’re back to debates on legislating morality. For example, is it a societal right to view (adult) pornography online? Many people would say yes, freedom of speech and press make this fine and the government has no role here.

But what if you are being spammed, tricked, deceived, misled or worse online? What if the content is being pushed at you against your will? Whose job is it to stop this activity? Is this the sole responsibility of households? Can they possibly be successful – without turning off the Internet? What if web filtering companies can’t get the job done? Should the government help citizens in these cases? (Many of these online situations eventually lead to illegal activity, and these lines of “acceptable” are constantly moving.)

With the postal system, mail fraud is a crime. Do we need similar online laws? Indeed, we already have them - but they are not being enforced. (Check out our spam laws around the world.)

In Australia, the government has taken a more active role in web filtering.  The global “free Internet” community calls this censorship and actively fights against every step. While I have some difficulty with this government approach, their goals and activity reflect a deeper understanding of the serious online problems we face. I think many Americans underestimate the online dangers we face, and most families do far too little to protect their families. (I am including Christians in this statement.)

In conclusion, this topic evokes emotions and attitudes that are complex and require a discussion that most Americans avoid. Words like “Internet censorship” make us want to respond – NO! We think of China or Iran. We want FREEDOM!

However, words and phrases like: “family safety,” “good cyber citizenship,” “purity,” “Godly character,” and “safe online,” make us feel good. As Christians, we want these things in our lives. The terms we use are “loaded” with emotions. As political debaters know well, the way you say “it” matters. (How can Americans both “oppose abortion” and support “a women’s right to choose” at the same time?) The key question is, as my father taught me, “What is the question?”    

Next time, I’ll try and bring these opposing views together into a pragmatic middle ground for Christians.  Meanwhile, I’d love to hear your thoughts on government involvement in Internet Safety.  

 The Wall Street Journal released a story on how widespread Internet tracking has become. Get used to this, because this is the new normal. Here's an excerpt:

  "The largest U.S. websites are installing new and intrusive consumer-tracking technologies on the computers of people visiting their sites—in some cases, more than 100 tracking tools at a time—a Wall Street Journal investigation has found....

 The 50 sites installed a total of 3,180 tracking files on a test computer used to conduct the study. Only one site, the encyclopedia Wikipedia.org, installed none. Twelve sites, including IAC/InterActive Corp.'s Dictionary.com, Comcast Corp.'s Comcast.net and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN.com, installed more than 100 tracking tools apiece in the course of the Journal's test."

  What is my reaction? First, I'm not surprised in the least. I mention this and similar trends in my book. This practice has been going on for a long time, and it will continue to grow.

 Second, as I mention in chapters 9 and 10, I am as concerned - just as other privacy advocates are. The main reason I'm concerned is a lack of knoweldge of these practices and clear communication of what's going on to users. I continue to advocate for an "opt-in" approach to gathering data by Internet companies rather than this default experience.

 Third, and this will surprise some readers of my blog who haven't read the book, I think this trend goes both too far and not far enough for true, helpful accountability and the blocking of unwanted online content. Too far in that it happens automatically, without true consent and understanding of users and without much control and easy to use ability to assist Christians.

 But not far enough in that those who want to "opt-in" could truly "surf your values" and have a wholesome Internet experience - if this monitoring was used for good. If opt-in profiles were used by trusted providers to enable us, this "tracking" could become an active tool to help. The article describes how we are targeted with ads, but is this done for evil or for good? Are we being tempted down the primrose path? YES.

 I'd like to see the ability to truly block unwanted material. More than that - to deliver what I truly want to see, so I don't have to go running all over the Internet looking for content and traverse distracting or even innapropriate material. I believe that this view is shared by many Christian families and others who want to surf their values.

 All of this is described in detail in chapters 9 and 10. Technology is heading in a direction where we can offer customers what they truly want and opt-in to see. These developments are both exciting and scary at the same time.

 Any thoughts on this trend?

[NOTE to readers - I will continue my previous series on Internet regulation in August. Again, a too-tempting article popped up for me to comment on.] 

 I'm taking a quick detour from my mini-series on the Internet Saftey perpsectives from various Christians. I'm doing this because of this new hot topic that just surfaced. This is another indication of how the dark side is progressing in cyberspace.

 And now we have digital drugs ...

  I was watching the morning news while jogging on my treadmill, and this story came up about digital drugs. This is no joke. Apparently, music is making kids high - just as if on illegal drugs.

  Here are a few stories from various sources: The Huffington Post: DIGITAL DRUGS: How Teens Are Using The Internet To Get 'High',

Google search for digital drugs,  and from the United Kingdom - i-dosing: the DIGITAL DRUG TERROR that is SWEEPING THE NATION, possibly

  For parents, this is a very serious issue that again reflects on virtual life is merging with real life in almost every area of society. This means the good, the bad and the ugly.

 What are your thoughts on digital drugs or i-dosing? 

The more time I spend researching various perspectives regarding appropriate use of the Internet by Christians, the more I come across conflicting points of view on how to achieve Internet Safety. I’m talking about big differences. In fact, many people question the role for schools, the role for families, the role of government, the role of the church or even the role technology can play in stopping unwanted content from crossing PC screens at home, work, libraries or churches. What’s strange is that these same Christians from both the right and the left (and north and south) of the political spectrum desire similar outcomes (such as purity in thought, word and deed, protecting children, helping families, etc), but their “how to” answers often contradict each other. In fact, seemingly irreconcilable differences often emerge. The various sides often demonize each other as well.

In this blog, I’ll discuss the Libertarian approach to the Internet, and next time I’ll discuss some of the more active (government engagement) approaches which I am seeing. But I want to start by suggesting that I see good points on both sides. My concern is that, no matter which view you take, each Christian parent must understand that ultimately it is your responsibility to protect your family and your character online.  The level of government involvement and help can be debated, but each of us is ultimately responsible to God.  

Many authors write about the need for more Internet freedoms. Data should be free. Keep the government out of Internet activity.  Don’t tax online transactions. They discuss (even rant about) Internet censorship in countries like China and Iran.  All sides agree that religious freedom and an accurate account of history are victims when inappropriate filtering and blocking the free flow of thought occurs in certain countries. Supporters of Internet freedom are everywhere, as shown by this article in which Hillary Clinton unveils U.S. policy on Internet freedom.

Here’s another video in which Hillary Clinton discusses Internet Freedoms.

And yet, groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation  go further and extend these same anti-censorship principles to everyone in the US and Europe as well. They encourage web surfers to go around their company’s filtering of “inappropriate content.” To them, any blocking of content is censorship. Personal privacy is the ultimate goal.

Christian Libertarian advocates also want to keep maximum freedom. For example, read this excerpt of a piece by Lew Rockwell:

Two basic pillars of libertarianism are personal freedom and an aversion to aggression. Libertarians rightly do not believe that people should be compelled to make decisions by the government. Even Christian libertarians, such as myself, who are morally opposed to activities such as smoking, drunkenness and homosexual behavior, still realize that it is not the proper role of the State to try to dictate to adults whether or not they should smoke. Nor does it make much sense for the State to patrol people’s bedrooms to make sure they aren’t engaging in sodomy. While many people view such habits as destructive, they can also look at the empirical evidence from history and realize that the State has a very bad track record trying to intervene in such matters (Prohibition, anyone?).

Their Libertarian motto: Fully free, Fully Responsible, Fully Accountable,

Of course, all of this seems fine until you read articles that take this even further. Is it ok to have no rules? This blog suggests that all automatic filtering should be stopped at schools.  Here’s an excerpt:

“In the course of our conversation, we also clarified his central point, which is, I think, common-sensical and inarguable: People, not machines, should have authority over what students are allowed to access on the Internet. The final authority over Internet access should reside with the teachers and librarians charged with overseeing students, not software.”

Here’s another article in which most librarians think that filtering is a bad idea from a pragmatic perspective.

It might be worth taking some time and reading this article on personal freedom from a Biblical perspective. Which leads to my last two articles. In the first, the case is made for “real” Internet freedom or Cyber-Libertarianism.

In the second, the two basic pillars of libertarianism are described. I close with this excerpt so that you can gain a better understanding of where this group is coming from philosophically.

“Two basic pillars of libertarianism are personal freedom and an aversion to aggression. Libertarians rightly do not believe that people should be compelled to make decisions by the government. Even Christian libertarians, such as myself, who are morally opposed to activities such as smoking, drunkenness and homosexual behavior, still realize that it is not the proper role of the State to try to dictate to adults whether or not they should smoke. Nor does it make much sense for the State to patrol people’s bedrooms to make sure they aren’t engaging in sodomy. While many people view such habits as destructive, they can also look at the empirical evidence from history and realize that the State has a very bad track record trying to intervene in such matters (Prohibition, anyone?).

On aggression, libertarians have long been champions against governmental coercion and unprovoked harm. Libertarians oppose unprovoked, immoral military aggression against foreign countries that are hardly waged in the name of defense. Likewise, libertarians oppose personal aggression that threatens ones life or property. Not only that, but governmental aggression against an individual’s pursuit of economic liberty is denounced rightly as aggression. This principle of non-aggression is innately tied to the concept of personal freedom and liberty. No outside governmental force has the right to compel or coerce another person’s personal behavior through the force of the State. Also, the State is immorally engaging in aggression when it sanctions murder or other forms of personal harm against its own or even foreign inhabitants for non-defensive reasons.”

So where does this leave me on Internet Safety? Of course, Libertarians believes that ALL Internet safety is a personal matter. We should be addressing this with our Internet Service Provider (ISP) and our family members. Just head to Staples or Best Buy and load up the software. Of course, they also understand the role of "heart issues" related to freedom of choice.  

While I applaud this “can do” personal responsibility on the Net mentality, I seriously doubt if most families can pull this off without significant help. The government may not be our answer, but the next question is: who is truly living-out this freedom model role in Christian families today? In my opinion, very, very few people are doing well regarding moral purity online – unless they just turn off their computers.

No doubt, this vacuum creates an economic opportunity for businesses, but my friendly tech vendors are struggling badly to just keep the malware and viruses off of my laptop. They do a very poor job of helping me to protect my character and “surf my vales” in cyberspace. As I describe in my book, we need the seven habits of online integrity in each of our lives, but unfortunately, most people aren’t catching that vision yet. So yes, the government is stepping in to fill the void – for better or worse. This is both scary and fairly predictable – based on their role in just about all of society and their stances on what’s allowed in public schools. (Prayer is not allowed.)

Next time, I’ll look at government activities and upcoming Internet regulation. While I don’t support all that’s going on, and in my heart I’m for “Internet Freedom,” the wild, wild Internet is getting out of control and beyond the ability for the average Joe to protect himself. We’ll also examine the steps that Chrsitians can take while the debate rages on.

My last piece on this topic will look at some potential middle ground. I will offer some pragmatic steps for Christians who find themselves on the front lines of these Internet battles.

Any thoughts from you on this topic?

  A recent USA Today article proclaimed that: Young adults keep closer eye on 'online reputation'  Here's an excerpt:

But a new survey turns that notion on its head, showing that those 18 to 29 are more likely than older Internet users to keep a keen eye on their online profiles and who can access them, according to a Pew Internet & American Life Project report out Wednesday on 'Reputation Management and Social Media."'

 These survey results won't surprise readers of Virtual Integrity. Indeed, online reputation is only one of the aspects of Integrity Theft which the younger generation is concerned with. The truth is that our integrity and character are at stake every time we engage others in cyberspace.

 Indeed, just as identity theft happens online and in the real world (see this article where a Harvard senior charged with forging his way into university), so online  behaviors will impact every area of our lives. I have seen people lose jobs, marriages or even go to jail for online activity. Nevertheless, we can also be cyber ambassadors for good.

 The interesting things is that many in the younger generation seem to "get it" when it comes to what's at stake, while older generations do not. That is, those in their teens or twenties are seeing for themselves what happens when they don't act with online integrity.  

 On a related topic: RC Sproul Jr. recently answered the question: Should Christians be on Facebook?  His answers are very similar to the the problems I describe in Virtual Integrity, and I urge you to read his comments.

 The only item I disagree with him on is item #6 - "The cyberworld can be a barren wasteland, not because it is filled with pornography and gambling, but because it isn’t real, because it is Gnostic."

While I can understand his point - the cyberworld is very real with very real consequences to online actions. The view that the Internet is totally fake can cause problems in many areas of life. In addition, our  cyber worlds and real worlds are merging closer together all the time.

   What are your thoughts on these articles and trends in cyberspace?

  Here are a few helpful links that you might find useful :

 1) The Luddite's Guide to Technology (and all that stuff) - This short guide from the UK offers many "how to" descriptions from "How to subscribe to a podcast" to "How to get the most out of google searches."

 2)  For the more advanced users, you may find this CNN/Money Fortune series of videos to be helpful regarding a wide range of interesting technology topics.

3) Christians who have never visited Godtube.com or Tangle.com. may want to take a look at what those websites have to offer.

Happy Surfing,

Dan

fyi - For those who are wondering, I will be getting back to "The Mortification of Sin" overview in the next few months.  It's been a busy Winter and early Spring in the Lohrmann household.

 Here are a few of the stories that I've been following over the past weeks:

Ads appear on school websites
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-03-17-school-website-ads_N.htm
 
 
 
Break Media's collection of websites knows guys http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-03-17-break17_ST_N.htm   
 
 
 
FCC's National Broadband Plan raises divisive issues 
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-03-17-fcc17_ST_N.htm
 

If you read through these articles, you'll quickly see that many of my predictions from Virtual Integrity are happening right now (faster than I expected).

One interesting question is this: if the government is advocating broadband connectivity as a virtual mandate for all, are they partially responsible  for the bad things that happen as well? I'm not sure.

 However, think of state lotteries and the free 800 lines for gambling addicts, etc. With the many good things online come the bad, so the government may be getting even more involved in these online topics as well.  

This can be a good or bad thing - depending on many factors. But there is little doubt that this is a developing trend. There are already many government run websites like www.ftc.gov/idtheft that help in the fight against ID Theft, but what I'm talking about goes much further than consumer advice.

Nevertheless, we'll never eliminate the need for personal responsibility and godly character. Our trust is not in man but in the Lord. Psalm 73:26-28 says this:

My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my life and my portion forever. For behold, those who are far from you shall perish; you put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to you. But for me it is good to be near God; I have made the Lord God my refuge, that I may tell of your works. 

What are your thoughts on these articles?  

 If you have an extra hour and want to truly learn more about what's coming with virtual world's, new marketing techniques online and a host of other interesting material, watch this lecture from the Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Regardless of your viwepoint on these topics, the research is fascinating to watch and discuss.

  The lecture is given by Jeremy Bailenson, founding director of Stanford University's Virtual Human Interaction Lab and an associate professor in the Department of Communication at Stanford. He describes how everything can be manipulated in virtual worlds. I won't even try to summarize his findings, so watch and learn.

  No doubt, the implications can be pretty scary for the future of virtual worlds. And yet, it is important to know what the future holds.

More to come on this topic

  OK, so my daughter and I finally saw the movie Avatar last night. It was an amazing experience. There are millions of websites analyzing various aspects of the movie right now, but I want to discuss how this movie will likely impact the majority online over the next few years.   

  Avatar is an simply amazing accomplishment and a true milestone in filmmaking. Christianity Today has a nice review by Todd Hertz, and Pluggedin.com offers a more thorough look which is a bit more critical. Since Avatar just broke all box office records, I suspect that people will be talking about this movie for a long, long time.

  So what's the immediate reaction for movie-goers? CNN describes a certain Avatar Blues in which: "James Cameron's completely immersive spectacle "Avatar" may have been a little too real for some fans who say they have experienced depression and suicidal thoughts after seeing the film because they long to enjoy the beauty of the alien world Pandora."

 The articles goes on to describe how people search the Internet to learn more about Pandora and immerse themselves in "that feeling" again. It's a bit like how I feel after a big NFL football game - if my team wins and important matchup. I want to watch the replays, interviews, read blogs and get ready for next week.    

 Where am I going with this? I think James Cameron has given a huge, no monsterous, boost to avatars in cyberspace. Put another way, I suspect that there may be an avatar in your life - coming soon. How soon, you ask? It depends - but probably within five years and likely within a decade.

 No, I'm not predicting any Pandoras coming to earth, but I am suggesting that plenty of earthlings will be running around virtual Pandora. More than that, Second Life and other virtual worlds describe what an avatar can be today.  Over the next few years,  we will all be using avatars like we use email today.

 Don't believe me? Check out this post from Internet Evolution. Here's an excerpt:

"The patent, filed more than year ago but only recently publicized, is for 'Avatar Individualized By Physical Characteristic.' The patent's abstract says the avatar created this way 'reflects a physiological characteristic of the user, injecting a degree of reality into the capabilities or appearance.... The physical characteristics can be further extended to psychological traits associated with the physical person, including intelligence, religious beliefs, political affiliations, and hobbies that affect the rendering of an avatar.'"

 So avatars in cyberspace will bring together the virtual and physical worlds in new ways. They will help us shop online, be our view (and perhaps filter)  into the Internet, identify who we are, allow people to build new relationships in "virtual worlds" (like Second Life) with the "real" person being on the other side of the planet - just like in the movie.  

 Believe it or not, Gartner predicts that 2% of US citizens will get married in a virtual marriage by 2015, and many people are signing up today. Get this: "(Adam) Sarner predicts companies will spend more money marketing and advertising products and services to virtual “personas” by 2020 than they do in the physical world. He also says at least one city will elect a 'virtual anonymous persona' to be its mayor by 2020." 

 What are the implications for Christians and people of faith? That is one topic I will be discussing in 2010 in this blog. The implications for everyday life are vast, and I don't think we should run away from this topic. This trend will affect how we view the world around us and how we interact with others. Much more to come on this topic.

What are your thoughts on the movie Avatar?