Faith Well Grounded

I did read GoodKat's other two posts. Your reference to them as backing up your point leaves me with nothing to say but: Huh? One made some generalizations about creationists, but nothing unreasonable or too outlandish. The second was just a philosophical dive into sin and hell, something you basically asked for in the poll.

It becomes fairly obvious that he/she is being, at best, stereotypical and at worse (with comments such as "assaulted"), bigoted.

The "assualted" comment was a description of GoodKat's personal experience with actual people. It was not stated that ALL Christians are doing the assault.

stereotypes are wrong, and an incredibly lazy way to think.

I agree, but I'm not sure you are applying the word fairly here. GK was speaking directly to Anonymous, and using generalizations to make a point. GK did not use those generalizations to make a judgement about you or any other Christian. GK was saying, in effect, that Anonymous' statements line up with GK's experiences with other Christians, then GK implores Anonymous to consider an alternative.

I'm not saying the generalization is right or wrong, just that your single example fails to produce the intended result. Indeed, your blog introduction page has the quote, "Christianity is often criticized for what appears to be blind faith, and sometimes this criticism is well deserved." Granted, you use the "sometimes" qualifier, but is that statement really that far removed from GK's?

Your racist and sexist examples are well taken, if a bit over the top. Those have distinct malicious content. I don't think GK intended malice, though the choice of "scared" might have been replaced with "reluctant" to remove the assumption of motive. Maybe GK stated it that way on purpose, hoping Anonymous would think, "Hey, I'm not *scared* of any book! I can read it even if I don't agree with it!"

I think that my response was even-handed

You called GK an irrational bigot...

I even got to offer GoodKat THE message of love, that God loves him/her and wants a close personal relationship with him/her.

You *got* to? You make it sound like GK should thank you for that, or that you deserve a gold star. I'm pretty sure GK has heard that message before, and found it insufficient. I'm also pretty sure you know that. So what was the point?

So, with all of that said... Exactly what is your beef with my response?

When you boil it down, GK was advocating to Anonymous the very same thing that you advocate here--don't rest on blind faith--and yet you ignore the message and take issue with the worldview and semantics of the messenger. I see Anonymous' post as a cry for direction ("I am wondering", "I hope someone will comment"). You didn't answer that call, but instead jumped on GK for doing so. Your application of that opinion to yourself seems a bit, um, well, for lack of a better word, self-centered.

I apologize if I come across as conceited or smug in my responses. To be honest, I feel a bit strange defending GK on the basis of three short posts. I doubt either GK or Anonymous will ever see this exchange, so the whole thing is a bit out of proportion at this point.