Worst Face of American Christianity
(public topic in Grupthink Theological Society)
1 year ago
13 Comments
For every christian that does right by their beliefs, the commandments, and what their church tells them is the path of the righteous, there are at least as many christians, some incredibly public, who favor a return to the Dark Ages and Spanish Inquisition (expect it!).
In your opinion, who is the worst of these counter-progress christians
Tags: none
1. |
 |
||
2. |
 |
||
3. |
 |
||
4. |
 |
||
5. |
 |
||
6. |
 |
||
7. |
 |
||
8. |
 |
||
9. |
|||
 |
Add a new answer! |
Page 1 of 1
Topic Details
This topic was started by chromigula on October 11th, 2007. 22 grupies have voted on one or more of the 9 answers.
Tags: none
Comments |
Leave a comment
Please cite some reliable evidence that would justify the bold claim that for every christian that abides by their faith, "at least as many christians...favor a return to the Dark Ages and Spanish Inquisition..."
I'm not an outspoken proponent of any particular religion, but this statement--presented without qualification--seems over the top.
Tried to edit it earlier to something a little less typed-while-drunk, but I got a message that blank topics aren't allowed (?).
The edited version of the question would read:
For every christian that does right by their beliefs, the commandments, and what their church tells them is the path of the righteous, there seem to be at least as many christians, some incredibly public, who flout those values and instead seek self-glorification. Those who pick and choose which parts of the bible are worth adhering to, and which we can just ignore. (Just like the manatees, either everything is valid, or nothing is.)
In your opinion, who is the worst of these counter-progress christians?
That makes more sense to me, chromigula. Thanks for the clarification.
Religion aside, I really dislike this practice of making inflammatory and false (or grossly exaggerated) allegations to attract fellow-travelers like sharks to chum, all for the purpose of:
a) Getting quick GPâs.
b) Practicing to be a politician, or
c) Fervently announcing the perceived Truth (scariest of all)
Hmm...
First time on the internet?
The internet is riddled with falsehoods, fantasies, and fallacies. That's why some of us visit environments such as Grupthink in hopes of rational discourse.
Statements providing topic context and intended to be factual should at least be defensible. As you see (J.Mapleseed), chromigula made a reasoned and defensible argument in his edit.
By the way, I was writing code for the IBM PC ten years before the birth of the worldwide web. The internet existed at that time, but young people today probably wouldn't recognise it. Would you?
You mean back when it was still the DARPANET?
Some of us young people would recognize it (I'm 26, but that's still a good ways after the origin).
I agree with you and marked your comment "well said". I was just making a joke.
I would not recognize the internet as it existed 10 years before the birth of the www. Clearly I'm inferior.
chromigula - Yes, or ARPAnet. I think in the '80's, Compuserve was the most visible resource.
Looking back at the evolution, it's amazing. All the hours spent online with 1200 and 2400 BAUD modems...
*shudder* I remember Compuserve. Also, Prodigy.
Thank god we've come so far!
J.Mapleseed: I apologize for the implication of condescension. Not trying to imply who's superior or inferior. In fact, I'm revealing my old age, which clearly indicates some aspects of inferiority on my part.
And I get your joke.
All those Prodigy geeks used to make fun of all of us old Videotel geeks. curse you!