...otherwise your response is a bit puzzling. GoodKat was responding to Anonymous' post concerning the athiest friend.
I'm a Christian, and you may have noticed that I'm quite well studied up on opposing views. Would you be willing to admit that you're painting with far too broad a brush? Most would call that stereotyping and bigoted. As a matter of fact, I started a blog to rationally dialog on the subjects in question. I think I disprove your point.
GoodKat was making a generalization, one supported by Anonymous' statements. A single contrary example does not disprove the generalization. The fact that your willingness to study opposing views is even worth mentioning implies that you are in the minority of Christians which tends to confirm the generalization.
Webster's defines bigotry as, "obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them." That hardly describes GoodKat's assertion. In fact, that appears to decribe what GoodKat is arguing against. Your accusation is a bit inflamatory.
You've failed to make a rational argument.
The quotation you gave contained two questions from GoodKat, not an argument. The overall argument is for honest intellectual inquiry. If anything in this exchange lacks rationality, I'd point to Anonymous' original post.
And... I've read Discworld. Remember? I posted the quote. And I'm a Christian. So, I still don't see your point.
GoodKat's reply was clearly directed to Anonymous, not you. It was an encouragement to read the book, despite the apparent offense to Anonymous' Christian beliefs. As one who routinely confronts alternate viewpoints, why would you have a problem with GoodKat promoting the same intellectual pursuit? Why wouldn't you provide the same encouragement, especially for someone who obviously is looking for direction?
I hope you just misunderstood GoodKat
...otherwise your response is a bit puzzling. GoodKat was responding to Anonymous' post concerning the athiest friend.
I'm a Christian, and you may have noticed that I'm quite well studied up on opposing views. Would you be willing to admit that you're painting with far too broad a brush? Most would call that stereotyping and bigoted. As a matter of fact, I started a blog to rationally dialog on the subjects in question. I think I disprove your point.
GoodKat was making a generalization, one supported by Anonymous' statements. A single contrary example does not disprove the generalization. The fact that your willingness to study opposing views is even worth mentioning implies that you are in the minority of Christians which tends to confirm the generalization.
Webster's defines bigotry as, "obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them." That hardly describes GoodKat's assertion. In fact, that appears to decribe what GoodKat is arguing against. Your accusation is a bit inflamatory.
You've failed to make a rational argument.
The quotation you gave contained two questions from GoodKat, not an argument. The overall argument is for honest intellectual inquiry. If anything in this exchange lacks rationality, I'd point to Anonymous' original post.
And... I've read Discworld. Remember? I posted the quote. And I'm a Christian. So, I still don't see your point.
GoodKat's reply was clearly directed to Anonymous, not you. It was an encouragement to read the book, despite the apparent offense to Anonymous' Christian beliefs. As one who routinely confronts alternate viewpoints, why would you have a problem with GoodKat promoting the same intellectual pursuit? Why wouldn't you provide the same encouragement, especially for someone who obviously is looking for direction?