Christianity Thread II: Y'all need Jesus

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Christianity Thread II: Y'all need Jesus

Cythereal: Nov 8, 2009; I love the potoo,
and the potoo loves you.

Tias posted:

Would you enlighten a complete evangelical noob what the core beliefs are? My knowledge extends no further than wikipedia and 'self-declared evangelicals in USA are insane' : /

Basically comes down to a few key points:

1. Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling. Your walk with God is ultimately between you and Him, and no one else. Other people can and should advise and guide you, and you should engage in fellowship with fellow believers, but no one can decide for you what to believe. There is no priestly caste, no intervening or intercessory figures like archangels or saints. It's you alone in a box in the dark with God.

2. Sola scriptura: all church activities and beliefs should be based on scripture (i.e. the Bible). This is not the same thing as fundamentalism or Biblical literalism.

3. Sola fide: by faith alone are you saved. Not works, although if you have faith then you should also be performing good works.

4. Sola gratia: salvation is by grace alone. There is no earning salvation, no "be a good enough person and you'll be saved." We are all innately broken, sinful creatures deservedly damned to hell, and it is only by the grace of God and Christ's sacrifice that we are saved.

Edit: I posted this in the last thread about some core cultural differences.

Hoo boy. I'll try to explain a few critical differences in the American evangelical mentality versus what I understand of a more liturgical mindset:

quote:

1. If your church isn't busy growing, it's busy dying. It's come up in this thread before what "evangelical" means in the sense of American churches, and this thread's consensus was that it means the first two answers on dictionary.com: Also, e�van�gel�ic. pertaining to or in keeping with the gospel and its teachings; belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, especially of the new testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ. From an American evangelical standpoint, this is incorrect: they are evangelical because they're focused on evangelism. Organizations like the SBC are intensely focused on missionary work and converting people because that is what Christ commanded them to do in the Great Commission. To the evangelical mindset, a church that is not growing and converting non-believers is failing in its appointed task and is risking spiritual stagnation if not outright decay.

2. Liturgy is fine, but missing the point. This thread lumps in Lutheranism with groups like Catholics, Orthodox, and Episcopalians. The typical evangelical mindset does not: Lutherans are grouped with Methodists as being Protestants who are stuffier and more formal than normal, but place Catholics, Orthodox, and Episcopalians as something else entirely. I'll get into this in more detail in point 3, but the short version is: if a Southern Baptist church wanted to do a formal liturgical style for its services, they'd be considered weird but if that's what the church residents want to do, that's their call. To the evangelical mindset, it truly doesn't matter how you conduct a service. Traditional hymns? Great. Gospel folk songs? Terrific. Call and response? Sure. Rambling two hour sermons? Why not. In the Southern Baptist mind, two guys at a coffee shop with a Bible talking things over constitute a church and a service. How the service is conducted is whatever the church feels like and doesn't matter at all theologically.

3. The priesthood of all believers. This is the big difference between American evangelicals and groups like Catholics, Orthodox, and Episcopalians. It's also the huge reservation I have against those denominations spiritually (nothing against members of those denominations, it's just a belief I have a great deal of difficulty with). In the evangelical mindset, here is the one difference between a lifelong pastor and a guy who just joined the church that morning: the pastor is the one who gets up to the pulpit to teach. There is nothing spiritually different about pastors, no special calling or spiritual distinction. They are just believers who have a gift for teaching and/or leadership, and so lead and teach a congregation. That's all. I don't really understand what distinguishes priests in non-Protestant liturgical faiths so I can't speak of the differences from that end, but to the evangelical mindset, if you believe in Christ then bam, you're a priest on duty 24/7. Evangelicals explicitly reject the notion that anyone is particularly favored by God or there's a group with distinct theological privileges like a pope, patriarch, or saint. These people may be great leaders and teachers, worthy of respect and theological consideration, but they're no different on a spiritual level from the homeless guy who slips into the back row of the church every Sunday.

4. Ritual isn't belief. Drawing from points 2 and 3, here is the unofficial evangelical line on infant baptism, confession, and pretty much every ritual and sacrament that isn't baptism as a public profession of faith from someone mature enough to decide for themselves to believe in Christ or Communion: it's a nice tradition with zero spiritual meaning. Confessing sins is good in the sense that you're admitting you screwed up, and by all means talk with your pastor or another spiritual advisor if something is bothering you, but there's nothing spiritually significant about it beyond that you're acknowledging your sin and presumably hoping to improve your behavior. To the evangelical mindset, all the rituals and sacraments and ceremonies of liturgical faiths have all the significance of a Baptist church's Easter or Christmas pageant: none unless it happens to personally affect you on a spiritual level.

I'm just noting that this is the general American evangelical standpoint. American evangelical churches typically perform only two sacraments: believer's baptism and Communion. In the case of baptism, the Southern Baptist Convention at least does not perform infant baptism. The way it's always described in Baptist churches is that baptism is a public expression of an inward commitment. A person mature enough to make an intelligent and willing decision to follow Christ is baptized as a public profession of faith, a recognition of an internal decision they made. I think a close analogue to how American evangelicals understand baptism would be confirmation as practiced by other denominations. I personally was raised in the church, but only came to a mature understanding of Christianity and faith when I was 11. I had some long conversations with my parents and pastor, both leading up to that understanding and exploring just what it meant to me. It was after a few conversations with my pastor that he decided that I was ready for baptism, if I wished it.

In the case of Communion, American evangelical churches do not believe in transubstantiation (is that the right word?). It's understood to be a purely symbolic sacrament: you are echoing Christ's commands to the disciples at the Last Supper and affirming your commitment to those commands. My church used unleavened bread and wine for Communion because it's tradition, but doesn't ascribe any actual significance to it.

Marriage in evangelical churches is not seen as a sacrament. It's seen as a tradition and an affirmation that the bride and groom are believers and intend to love each other as Christ commanded that husbands and wives do. But again, nothing significant to it theologically or spiritually.

I'd say that American evangelicals don't disrespect things like confession so much as they don't understand why other denominations consider them significant. American evangelicals hold to the sacraments performed by Jesus and commanded to his disciples, and regard others as simple tradition. Tradition is important for a lot of people, sure, and if it's significant to you then knock yourself out, but American evangelicals don't think those traditions have any spiritual significance in and of themselves.

As for the term evangelical itself, here is American evangelicals.txt: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." American evangelicals tend to consider these two of the most important verses in the Bible.

Cythereal fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jul 13, 2017

# ? Jul 13, 2017 19:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 18:58

Tias: May 25, 2008; Pictured: the patron saint of internet political arguments (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Very cool stuff, thanks!

# ? Jul 13, 2017 19:46

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

Cythereal posted:

Basically comes down to a few key points:

1. Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling. Your walk with God is ultimately between you and Him, and no one else. Other people can and should advise and guide you, and you should engage in fellowship with fellow believers, but no one can decide for you what to believe. There is no priestly caste, no intervening or intercessory figures like archangels or saints. It's you alone in a box in the dark with God.

2. Sola scriptura: all church activities and beliefs should be based on scripture (i.e. the Bible). This is not the same thing as fundamentalism or Biblical literalism.

3. Sola fide: by faith alone are you saved. Not works, although if you have faith then you should also be performing good works.

4. Sola gratia: salvation is by grace alone. There is no earning salvation, no "be a good enough person and you'll be saved." We are all innately broken, sinful creatures deservedly damned to hell, and it is only by the grace of God and Christ's sacrifice that we are saved.

Edit: I posted this in the last thread about some core cultural differences.

Hoo boy. I'll try to explain a few critical differences in the American evangelical mentality versus what I understand of a more liturgical mindset:

I would also add that many Evangelical groups have a strong emphasis on the end times and a siege mentality (us vs. them). Jesus is coming back to enact final judgment on all mankind literally any day now, have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior? There's often a view that we're living in a depraved and sinful world and that a good Evangelical should reject all that. This leads to phenomena like home-schooling being really popular among Evangelicals, gotta give our kids a righteous Christian education and not a corrupted secular one!

Evangelicals don't do saints but many of them do believe that Satan (and/or demons) are very real and working constantly to tempt us in our daily lives. This comes back to the siege mentality: we have to be really careful with the information and media we consume and the people we interact with because Satan may be working through them to try and corrupt us.

Generally speaking their theology is mainstream Protestantism taken to the logical extreme conclusions.

# ? Jul 13, 2017 20:28

Cythereal: Nov 8, 2009; I love the potoo,
and the potoo loves you.

Pellisworth posted:

I would also add that many Evangelical groups have a strong emphasis on the end times and a siege mentality (us vs. them). Jesus is coming back to enact final judgment on all mankind literally any day now, have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior? There's often a view that we're living in a depraved and sinful world and that a good Evangelical should reject all that. This leads to phenomena like home-schooling being really popular among Evangelicals, gotta give our kids a righteous Christian education and not a corrupted secular one!

Evangelicals don't do saints but many of them do believe that Satan (and/or demons) are very real and working constantly to tempt us in our daily lives. This comes back to the siege mentality: we have to be really careful with the information and media we consume and the people we interact with because Satan may be working through them to try and corrupt us.

Generally speaking their theology is mainstream Protestantism taken to the logical extreme conclusions.

I personally don't truck with the siege mentality, or end times obsession, or political conservatism, or "America is special!," or the Satan stuff. I also strongly believe in equal rights and rites for women and LGBT people. But I've come to the conclusion that the core theology and principles I noted - especially the solae - are things I really do agree with and have a very hard time departing from.

# ? Jul 13, 2017 20:31

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

There's a bunch of calvinist evangelicals out there too, I would add.

# ? Jul 13, 2017 20:32

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Disinterested posted:

There's a bunch of calvinist evangelicals out there too, I would add.

there's calvinist fundamentalists out there, and they're nasty--have you heard of theonomists? you must've--but as far as i know they don't evangelize. if you end up damned, they think, that's on you

# ? Jul 13, 2017 20:51

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

HEY GAIL posted:

there's calvinist fundamentalists out there, and they're nasty--have you heard of theonomists? you must've--but as far as i know they don't evangelize. if you end up damned, they think, that's on you

Rough in a severely predestinationist philosophy.

# ? Jul 13, 2017 20:54

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Look, these people were saved, but not because of anything they did. You fucks in the eternal fire, however, you know what you did.

# ? Jul 13, 2017 20:55

pidan: Nov 6, 2012

Evangelisch is the German catch-all term for Lutherans and reformed. The official association of German protestants chose "Evangelical Church in Germany" as their official English name, possibly because they don't want to define themselves by protesting against the RCC.

I looked on the website of the Chinese church, and it seems they're associated with the Reformed church (of W�rttemberg). On their "about us" page they have the full Apostles' Creed and these items:
- the Bible is divine revelation
- we believe in the trinity
- Jesus is fully divine & fully human, and the only salvation for humankind
- everybody who repents and turns to Jesus gets [something] from God
- the church is the body of Christ and led by the holy spirit
I can't speak to the theological nuances here because I don't really know the Chinese terminology, but it seems to me that fits a lot of denominations including the ones cythereal has described.

They do have a lot of Bible study groups. Pictures of their services show the priest either wearing a protestant black cassock with white collar and a stole or a normal suit. One picture also has a white priest wearing what appears to be liturgical gear, though in my experience protestant priests are pretty creative about what they wear so who knows.

# ? Jul 13, 2017 20:55

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

pidan posted:

Evangelisch is the German catch-all term for Lutherans and reformed.

that's because evangel means gospel, it's not because they want to proselytize

# ? Jul 13, 2017 21:04

Cythereal: Nov 8, 2009; I love the potoo,
and the potoo loves you.

HEY GAIL posted:

that's because evangel means gospel, it's not because they want to proselytize

Evangel means proselytizing to American Evangelicals, though. One of those happy little coincidences.

# ? Jul 13, 2017 21:06

Samuel Clemens: Oct 4, 2013; I think we should call the Avengers.

Yeah, in my experience, conversations about Evangelicalism between Americans and Germans get confusing very quickly.

# ? Jul 13, 2017 21:20

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

Yeah, "Evangelical" is the English translation of what Luther wanted to call the church (cf "gospel") but that's very much not the same thing as American Evangelicalism. The largest (and fairly progressive) Lutheran body here is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) but it's quite different from American Evangelicalism and we're not big on proselytizing.

# ? Jul 13, 2017 21:46

Numerical Anxiety: Sep 2, 2011; Hello.

Disinterested posted:

There's a bunch of calvinist evangelicals out there too, I would add.

In a broad sense, aren't most US evangelicals descended from Arminius' theology via the Greak Awakenings?

As a note to self, start fundraising for the Cathedral of the Hagia Dyslexia, future headquarters of the Arminian Orthodox Church.

# ? Jul 13, 2017 23:00

CountFosco: Jan 9, 2012; Welcome back to the Liturgigoon thread, friend.

pidan posted:

There's an Ethiopian church very near my house but I don't know how they feel about whitey checking them out and I don't have a white scarf either.

There's a Chinese evangelical church even closer, but I feel weird about going for the same reason, and my boyfriend refuses to come with.

I'm pretty sure I was the only white guy in what appeared to be a crowd of about 200+ Egyptian immigrants and it worked out ok for me. They were happy to talk to someone who was familiar with Coptic traditions (if only through reading).

# ? Jul 14, 2017 20:33

The Phlegmatist: Nov 24, 2003

Numerical Anxiety posted:

In a broad sense, aren't most US evangelicals descended from Arminius' theology via the Greak Awakenings?

Yeah, although the early evangelicals from the Great Awakenings had a postmillenial character that's not present in modern-day evangelicals who are all rapture-ready premillenial dispensationalists. The early evangelicals focused heavily on social justice; abolition, prohibition, environmentalism, animal rights, etc. due to their heavy postmillenial focus and actually the first female preachers to become famous were Baptists during the Second Great Awakening.

Then everything went to poo poo starting in the 1930s, with a surge in popularity of Fundamentalism and is when the heavily integrated Pentecostal movement started to divide among racial lines, and eventually the evangelicals became welded tight to the conservative movement in the US when Civil Rights, the Sexual Revolution and the Cold War all went down in quick succession and they lost their drat minds and circled their wagons to defend themselves from the secular world. This was helped along immensely by premillenial dispensationalism since everything became a sign and symbol of the fact that they were the only real Christians and they were living in the end times.

I think the fact that the US had never really developed a coherent conservative ideology that's suitable for Protestants played into this pretty heavily. Buckley was way too drat Catholic and Rand was way too drat atheist, so with no actual position for them to take, Evangelical Protestants kinda defined themselves as opposing any change in society whatsoever.

So basically I'd say that contemporary Evangelicals on the right have been around mostly unchanged since the 1950s and they share surprisingly little resemblance to their progenitors in the Great Awakenings, especially theologically.

# ? Jul 14, 2017 22:58

Bel_Canto: Apr 23, 2007; "Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo."

And that's funny, because the Protestant segment of the religious right is now very much in the driver's seat. It looked for a while in the 80s and 90s like the Catholics might be setting the agenda, especially when they began to dominate the Supreme Court, but it became pretty clear that they were kept around solely to provide intellectual cover. I think I'd also contest the notion that Buckley was some sort of standard-bearer of coherent conservative ideology: he was very much of the "gently caress the poor and minorities first, justify it later" sort, and the the fact that he spoke with a fake-rear end transatlantic accent and talked about his lovely misreadings of Thucydides did understandably make people think he actually cared about ideas, but he was pretty disingenuous IMO.

# ? Jul 15, 2017 03:06

pidan: Nov 6, 2012

So I tried to join an eastern rite Catholic mass today because some people I knew were going, and at first I was into it, but I ended up bailing about a third of the way through because my headache got really bad. Incense: not even once / western church it is for me.

I think the incense also has some sort of mind altering effect, because the sounds and sights and physical effects became really unpleasantly intense, which is something I remember happening in church occasionally.

# ? Jul 16, 2017 09:33

Tias: May 25, 2008; Pictured: the patron saint of internet political arguments (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

pidan posted:

So I tried to join an eastern rite Catholic mass today because some people I knew were going, and at first I was into it, but I ended up bailing about a third of the way through because my headache got really bad. Incense: not even once / western church it is for me.

I think the incense also has some sort of mind altering effect, because the sounds and sights and physical effects became really unpleasantly intense, which is something I remember happening in church occasionally.

I'm allergic to smoke and noise, so such a ceremony seem pretty mind-bending in the bad way. It's genes and not the particular incense doing it, though.

# ? Jul 16, 2017 16:21

The Phlegmatist: Nov 24, 2003

Smoke inhalation activates your fight-or-flight response, a holdover from when we were all tree shrews and it was useful to have a burst of energy when the woods you lived in went up in flames and you had to get the hell out of dodge. Some people are much more sensitive to this than others.

Or you could be allergic, as Tias said. That would explain the headache. I think the Eastern Orthodox put rose in their incense, so that might be it.

# ? Jul 16, 2017 17:09

Senju Kannon: Apr 9, 2011; by Nyc_Tattoo

so in honor of the news that dr who is a woman i'm gonna post this article from catholic answers about why doctor who can't be a woman

i wait with baited breath what the person who probably didn't coin the phrase "transgender peeping toms" has to say about this new development in dr who lore that i can barely care about aside from a "huh that's cool i guess"

# ? Jul 17, 2017 09:46

CountFosco: Jan 9, 2012; Welcome back to the Liturgigoon thread, friend.

According to transgenderism, from what I can tell, there is a sense that one has a gender identity that does not conform to one's assigned gender. Therefore, according to this sense, Doctor Who having never before displayed any gender dysphoria, would as a result of regenerating into the body of a woman, experience gender dysphoria. He would be uncomfortable in this new female body, experience psychological revulsion at being something he is not, and go seeking out a gender reassignment surgeon ASAP (presumably he can choose from among the best in the universe.

For Doctor Who to be blase, blithely comfortable as a Woman, would be to counter the whole transgender movement, the idea that people really HAVE a gender identity which is counter to their biological birth condition.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 10:36

Senju Kannon: Apr 9, 2011; by Nyc_Tattoo

that sounds really stupid but i don't know enough about doctor who to dispute it

# ? Jul 17, 2017 10:43

Senju Kannon: Apr 9, 2011; by Nyc_Tattoo

also; transgenderism?

# ? Jul 17, 2017 10:44

JcDent: May 13, 2013; Give me a rifle, one round, and point me at Berlin!

I had to read that first line a few times before I realized that the talk is about Doctor Who instead of some actual doctor.

My hill to die on is "No Female Space Marines in 40K", so I'll pass this one.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 10:44

pidan: Nov 6, 2012

I've never watched dr who but I understand he regenerates new bodies infinitely, so having one that does not reflect his "gender identity" would be less of a problem than it is for humans who get one body only.

If I was immortal I wouldn't have any trouble being a dude for a couple of decades. Otoh if I stayed mortal but turned into a dude tomorrow that would interfere with how I've been living my life to the point where it might be distressing, and I say that as someone who doesn't really believe in gender identity either.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 10:49

Tuxedo Catfish: Mar 17, 2007; You've got guts! Come to my village, I'll buy you lunch.

Senju Kannon posted:

that sounds really stupid but i don't know enough about doctor who to dispute it

I do, God help me.

An episode two seasons back established that switching genders after a regeneration is something that happens to Time Lords from time to the time and it's barely worth more than an offhand comment "oh, how unusual, I was a dude the last seven times."

Also the series in general is kind of hazy on whether one regeneration and the next is even the same person in the strictest sense; they have the same memories but different personalities, several Doctors have expressed horror at the thought of dying especially as it got close, new regenerations are usually overwhelmed by all the new senses and experiences, etc.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 12:43

Paladinus: Jan 11, 2014; heyHEYYYY!!!

Nerds are the worst regardless of their religious affiliation. The correct response from a normal person to anything at happening in Doctor Who is not caring in the slightest.

Also, it's already been established in the show that Time Lords can change their gender on regeneration. The Doctor's main rival, Master, has become a lady who kind of wants to gently caress him, which is in itself a bit stupid for a variety of reasons, but anyone could see it coming miles away that the Doctor would be a woman soon, too.

Trap sprung, etc.

Paladinus fucked around with this message at 12:53 on Jul 17, 2017

# ? Jul 17, 2017 12:46

Ceciltron: Jan 11, 2007; Text BEEP to 43527 for the dancing robot!; Pillbug

Paladinus posted:

Nerds are the worst regardless of their religious affiliation. The correct response from a normal person to anything at happening in Doctor Who is not caring in the slightest.

Once in a while I take note of certain key words that I add to my mental list of "Tune out words", and almost all Dr. Who stuff is on there.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 12:48

docbeard: Jul 19, 2011

I watch and enjoy Doctor Who and know waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much about it and yeah, all anyone really needs to know is, well, nothing, but the slightly more than nothing version is that it's a fun family TV show about the adventures of a time-traveling alien space wizard who is going to be portrayed by a wonderful actress next year.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 14:02

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

turns out the ethiopians in my neighborhood go to an old Lutheran church a few blocks away. it makes sense, since East Germans are some of the least religious people on the planet you may as well use the building for something. I happened on their liturgy on Sunday as they were letting out and may attend on a weekend when I don't have a reenactment.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 14:24

Keromaru5: Dec 28, 2012; Pictured: The Wolf Of Gubbio (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

So yesterday my mom told me she wants to become Orthodox, but can't convince my dad to do it, and they both kind of feel like it's a hassle to convert at their age.

I'm... not quite sure how to feel about this.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 15:47

JcDent: May 13, 2013; Give me a rifle, one round, and point me at Berlin!

In the new doctor was an Ethiopian orthodox lady, I'd watch it.

I think I stopped around the time of... depression era America episode? Was it after Rose was done? I don't remember.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 16:13

Paladinus: Jan 11, 2014; heyHEYYYY!!!

# ? Jul 17, 2017 16:16

Caufman: May 7, 2007

I have to believe that an argument between a Methodist and an Episcopalian has to be more interesting than Batman V. Superman Yawn of Justice.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 19:02

System Metternich: Feb 28, 2010; But what did he mean by that?

https://twitter.com/lauramorelliphd/status/885528517852712964

Nowadays even bakeries have to decide between high and low church, smh

# ? Jul 17, 2017 19:16

The Phlegmatist: Nov 24, 2003

Senju Kannon posted:

also; transgenderism?

iow the common ground between terfers and tradcaths

Keromaru5 posted:

So yesterday my mom told me she wants to become Orthodox, but can't convince my dad to do it, and they both kind of feel like it's a hassle to convert at their age.

I'm... not quite sure how to feel about this.

"Look, dad, it's gonna be embarrassing for you when you get to the aerial tollhouses and you aren't rockin' a cool beard."

# ? Jul 17, 2017 19:25

CountFosco: Jan 9, 2012; Welcome back to the Liturgigoon thread, friend.

Paladinus posted:

Nerds are the worst regardless of their religious affiliation. The correct response from a normal person to anything at happening in Doctor Who is not caring in the slightest.

Also, it's already been established in the show that Time Lords can change their gender on regeneration. The Doctor's main rival, Master, has become a lady who kind of wants to gently caress him, which is in itself a bit stupid for a variety of reasons, but anyone could see it coming miles away that the Doctor would be a woman soon, too.

Trap sprung, etc.

Being apathetic about our cultural symbols is not going to serve us well in the long term, whether it's something nerdy or mainstream.

Please tell us more about what we shouldn't care about.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 20:58

Numerical Anxiety: Sep 2, 2011; Hello.

CountFosco posted:

Please tell us more about what we shouldn't care about.

Your posts seem a good candidate.

# ? Jul 17, 2017 21:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 27, 2024 18:58

CountFosco: Jan 9, 2012; Welcome back to the Liturgigoon thread, friend.

Thanks! I always appreciate a constructive criticism!

# ? Jul 17, 2017 22:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Christianity Thread II: Y'all need Jesus

«‹›229 »