Faith Well Grounded

And, as alluded to, due to a serious time constraint, I will leave it right here after this reply. (Also, I'm trying more and more to filter everything in my life through the question of whether my actions are bringing glory to God, and I'm feeling more and more that these tedious conversations don't.) But I'll answer some of your questions and respond to some of your points, at which time I'll leave this with you to respond to your heart's content, uninterrupted.

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.

Actually, it's closer to stating this than you initially think, if you take into account that Stephen Curtis Chapman is a Christian recording artist/song writer that I'm figuring GoodKat has never met or had a "personal experience" with. At the very least, it appears that GoodKat thinks that Christians he/she has never met are "assaulting" him/her. That is the first indication that the viewpoint against Christianity is bigoted and vastly stereotypical.

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.

This is not what he/she was saying. I've quoted it several times, and you can reread it for yourself. He/she said that Christians (a group defined) are scared to study opposing views (negative description). And, as mentioned earlier, he/she apparently feels that a Christian praising God on public airwaves is a personal assault to his/her freedom or person.

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?

You are repeatedly defending generalization, so much so that you've stated that a single exception can not disprove a generalization. As to the difference between the statements, the qualifier makes them hugely different.

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!"

And Christians this person never met personally assault them just by praising God on a radio station. The examples are not as over the top as you would indicate. Even in substance and form, I tried to make the examples as close to GoodKat's statement as possible. So, is it the group, or the motive that keeps GoodKat's comment from being stereotype? B/C form and insult (sacred assaulters) are similar.

You called GK an irrational bigot...

Bigotry by definition is irrational. Viewing the public expression of religious praise/views on the radio, by a person you have never met, as "assault"... You don't think that is a bigoted statement/viewpoint?

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?

Wow, you're scarping low to find something against what I do. Yes, I got to tell GoodKat that God loves him/her. I don't want a gold star or thanks. I got to share that message in the same way I would get to offer someone in the desert a drink of water. It's not a matter of thanks, or even the person realizing they need the water. It's a matter of doing what I feel the right thing is.

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've taken no issue with semantics. I've taken issue with bigoted stereotypes. Again, you accepted other statement examples as "well taken". Please list the other groups besides Christianity that you'll allow, when it comes to insulting stereotypical accusations of "head-in-the-sand-fear", and paranoid claims that songs on the radio are personal assaults. What other groups and worldviews are OK for this in your opinion?

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.

And I was hesitant to give anonymous that direction, because it's not my call. It's sort of like Paul describing whether someone should eat meat sacrificed to idols (a NT era problem for Christians). If it offended one's conscience, one said, then it's a sin to do it. If not, then go ahead.

Anonymous said:

"A few pages into the book it was evident that I should not read it."

There you go. It's evident. Anonymous was actually asking about writing the author who they know and I do not. I will not make a recommendation on that. In response GoodKat got on and used it as an opportunity, not to give direction, but to make inflammatory comments against Anonymous personally and Christians as a group/in general.

I seriously think you need to keep looking for that better word, because self-centered couldn't be further from the truth.

Now, with all of that, I will NOT revisit this subject. Feel free to dissect my motives and/or how I've reacted all you want. I stand by the fact that I have taken stereotypical and bigoted statements to task while at the same time offering the "Living Water" that every person on this planet needs and GoodKat admitted he/she doesn't have.

If you continue to take issue with either action, then I guess you'll live. :^)

If you want me to revisit and comment in this thread, let's get on the subject of the "Bloodthirsty God Theory" and the foreshadowing of blood sacrifices pointing forward to the Work that God's only Son performed on your behalf. THAT, my friend, is the subject that I know brings glory to God, and the one that I'd love to spend time on.

So, where would you like to start?