LOL CHRISTIANITY

[Snorkel]

Read all of this, it's both humorous and intelligent:

Okay, I've been gone from my mom's for about three weeks save for one day, and I just got home. I found a book on my desk -- Understanding The Times: The Religious Worldviews of Our Day And The Search For Truth. So I'm like, "goddamn, when will this woman ever stop" (my mother), and then I flip it over and read the back, just to see how much I could bash it in an essay type thing that I will submit to my mother, the publishing company, and the author personally if I can. Turns out, A LOT. Here's an excerpt:

"As never before in the history of our culture, the challenge before us is that of thinking clearly and Biblically in a world of media-pandered political correctness and ethical doublespeak. ... Understanding The Times is a quantum leap in the right direction. This book is designed to train students not only in recognizing and confronting the 'worldview bias' around them, but also in formulating Biblical answers--answers to the arguments forced on them by Secular Humanism, Marxism/Leninism, and New Age philosophy in the areas of theology, biology, psychology, sociology, law, ethics, economics, and history. Through the use of logical arguments and lucid writing, Dr. David Noebel exposes the flawed foundations of these popular ideologies..."

Okay, now WHAT THE FUCK? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

1. Firstly, the whole "as never before in the history of our culture" bullshit you see every goddamn time a conservative Christian tries to convert you. WHY exactly is our "worldview" so bad right now? Certainly it's not worse than Nazi germany polluting the minds of every innocent citizen with anti-Semitical propaganda? OH WAIT, THAT'S RIGHT. THE MUSLIMS ARE WAGING WAR AGAINST HUMANITY. I FORGOT.

2. As a sidenote, who the hell puts shit like "this book is a quantum leap toward bla bla" on the back of their own book? That excerpt isn't from a reviewer, or at least there's no citation. Yeah, that's not conceited at all.

3. Okay, secular humanism, whatever. Obviously theists have a problem with this. I understand that.

4. WHY THE BLATANT ATTACK ON MARXISM/LENINISM? I'll have to read this piece of shit, but I'll bet the author hasn't ever touched the Communist Manifesto in his life. He's probably like "OH SOVIET RUSSIA WAS BAD BECAUSE UM STALIN AND UM SATAN AND OH CHINA TOO".

5. "New Age arguments in biology, psychology, sociology, law, ethics, economics..." The guy probably means evolution by "biology". As for the others, I really have to wonder what he's going to say. If it's that the Bush Administration is bad, cool. But I'm 100% it's not. In fact, from later in the conceited praise on the back cover: "Left to the whims of outspoken politicians and liberal media, we are all trapped in the hostile terrain of atheistic materialism and moral relativism". Um, yeah. Protip: To sound forward-thinking and not "sociologically unsound" as this other would have it, associate yourself with political parties and denounce other religious groups. NO.

6. "...and history" Okay, now you're going to tell me that everything I know about history is wrong? And that I can find the truth by reading the Bible and becoming clear minded so I can see through revisionist media promoted by "liberal media"? Yeah, I've heard it all before. Obviously the media is a bit revisionist in nature, but my main gripe with this is the attack on LIBERAL MEDIA. Um, who's the one revising events 5 minutes after they occur? Why, no, it's not the BBC, it's in fact Fox News.


I could go on. I'm going to read this, just for a laugh. Maybe I'll put my full rebuttal to it in Serious Discussion later.

[YPrrrr]

4. They're most likely denouncing Marxism because there's no religion in communism. edumacate;

5. Also, by left, instead of Democrat as you're thinking, they could mean as far left as Communism (I could be wrong, but w/e)

[Snorkel]

4. They're most likely denouncing Marxism because there's no religion in communism. edumacate;

5. Also, by left, instead of Democrat as you're thinking, they could mean as far left as Communism (I could be wrong, but w/e)

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. But still, des the Bible and Jesus not want us to sell all our stuff and live humbly? Were the first Christian communities not Communist in nature?

And I'm pretty sure this guy isn't intelligent enough to see beyond America's lefts and rights.

[YPrrrr]

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. But still, des the Bible and Jesus not want us to sell all our stuff and live humbly? Were the first Christian communities not Communist in nature?

And I'm pretty sure this guy isn't intelligent enough to see beyond America's lefts and rights.

Yes, the community thing is true. Even today nuns and priests live together with a shared paycheck in one house (one house for priests/deacons; one for sisters). The main problem with Marxism the Chruch has is that it wants you to put your fellow man above any deity, which conflicts with the idea of God.


And it's generally taken as Jesus is fine with you owning things (even nice things) as long as you don't put material gain before God. If you're not willing to give it up if Jesus asks you to, then you've made money a deity over God, which is sinful.

[Daddy]

Was the book written by Mega_Smilax?  caterpie;

[Snorkel]

Was the book written by Mega_Smilax?  caterpie;

He's not that bad.  china;