Christian Cheat Sheet
Posted by Zach Wendling on 16 May 2006 | 9 responses
This writer notes that Christianity, as a 2000-year-old religion, can be extremely confusing to secularists, which includes some of our readers. In order to help them find their way, he provides an hilarious “cheat sheet” which explains some of the basic tenets and concepts in Christianity.
For example, did you know that . . .
Catholics are the New York Yankees of Christianity. They are the biggest and wealthiest team, and their owner is intensely controversial (this makes St. Francis of Assisi the Derek Jeter of Catholicism: discuss) . . . Catholics are not allowed to read the Bible, eat meat, or refrain from worshipping statues.
As Jane Galt says, read the whole thing.
Pretty funny, although before you know it, there will be calls for boycotting the blog, requests for the writer’s head on a platter and a top-ten list from David Letterman….
There also exists the possibility that there are those for whom the list was not humorous but representational of their understanding of religion in general and Christianity in particular.
I’ve always found it ironic that secularists often use the terms “fundamentalist Christian” and “evangelical Christian” interchangeably, when in reality there is a good deal of tension between those two very distinct groups.
I hate the Yankees.
“Fundamentalist” has simply become shorthand for “politically conservative Christian”, as has “evangelical” really. I can understand why this is annoying to Christians, but whether it matters much in terms of communication depends on the context. In the context of a discussion about theological distinctions, using language that broadly would certainly impede communication. But when discussing political issues where it’s just shorthand for the religious right in general, the theological distinctions don’t really change the point being made. It’s sort of like looking at a map on Mapquest, as you zoom in or out the level of specificity required changes. The use of such linguistic shortcuts is inevitable, really, and it happens in lots of different contexts. Still, I do understand the annoyance, particularly if someone is an evangelical but not a fundamentalist.
A few people use “fundamentalist” interchangeably with “fanatical” - and apply the word to more than just religion (ex: “fundamentalist environmentalism”).
I wonder how that could have happened. And wake up call, Alan; it’s more than a “few.”
“I wonder how that could have happened…”
Hm. Poor understanding on the part of those misusing it??
Hm. Poor understanding on the part of those misusing it??
Guess again.
“Guess again”? …. No, I like my answer. I’m sticking with that one!