#the point is that i'm not tying this woman to/blaming any particular denomination

[saint-ambrosef]

I normally would just mind my business and not butt my nose in, but i feel like maybe you would be open to hearing this so im giving it a shot. As someone who really appreciated and respected you, the way you just kind of threw out "evangelicals are wild" and encouraged blaming a Christian denomination on a post that didn't even identify the person being weird as that denomination was kind of a shock to see from you.

I've really enjoyed your content (thats saying something, im actually an athiest, lol) and found you really reasonable and wise in a lot of ways. I liked learning about catholicism from someone who genuinely cares about and defends their faith. I've always grown up seeing catholics as the epitome of traditionalist hypocrites who pick on everyone else, but you and a few others really began changing that for me. Because of that, I'm a litle taken aback how easily you and a few other catholic blogs I've followed just slap the evangelical label on any sort of Christian thing you find cringe. It comes off mean spirited and disingenuous as an outsider with just enough understanding to know what you're doing isn't all that fair. Evangelicalism is pretty broad movement that contains an extremely broad spectrum of people and "personal" ideaologies. Given the breadth of actors in catholicism as well, it seems like if anyone would understand why branding people by their worst actors is unfair, it would be you guys. It's probably distressing to see people so quickly bandwagon on and identify catholicism as the pedophile priest people or what I said about my original thoughts about catholicism earlier. I know I hate it enough with cringe reddit atheist edgelords being the first thing anyone thinks about when they hear athiest. So, I find it a little disappointing to see so many of you guys do to others what I'm sure you hate having done to your own worldview because who doesn't hate being misrepresented?

It's one thing to have some friendly jabs back and forth and to be open and honest about agreeing on worldviews, but purposefully reducing the opposing argument seems so underhanded. And to be clear, I think that woman is a nutjob and I laughed at how ridiculous what she said was, I'm not saying you can't agree she's crazy or laugh at someone for being insane or just plane wrong. It's using the extreme to identify thr whole that's where I'm finding myself disappointed.

It's not your responsibility to cater to your audience, I'm well aware. And I'm trying not to come off as someone nitpicking you for blowing off steam or having a laugh. I just felt like maybe I could bring up to you what it looks like as someone outside of faith and how it really jars the opinion I was forming on catholicism to see that. I'm not scandalized or unfollowing or anything, I just figure maybe it's worth saying that this wasn't a moment where I felt like catholicism was more then it's stereotype, and I'd rather you be aware and maybe give you a chance to respond before I let it become foundational.

Thank you for your time, and sorry for your long post.

I understand what you're saying and appreciate the respectful rebuke, but I can't say I agree with your conclusion.

When someone calls out a specific bad actor as an example of Catholicism, the vast majority of the time they are not actually modeling Catholic beliefs. They're straight up expressing heresy that is objectively contrary to an approved theological belief of a formally organized religion. So propping it up as an example of legitimate Catholic belief is factually incorrect and invalid.

As you say with Evangelicalism, it's a "pretty broad movement that contains an extremely broad spectrum of people and 'personal' ideologies". There isn't a set of definable beliefs. That's the exact problem - and the criticism implied in my original comment. Because of Evangelicalism's belief in personal interpretation without a central organized authority, any and all personal ideology is theoretically acceptable. Wack opinions like that lady are a direct result of mainstream Evangelicalism. Her beliefs are technically as valid as anyone else's under Evangelical understanding, even if 90% of other Evangelicals think her incorrect. She does validly represent Evangelical beliefs whether they like it or not.

Again, I appreciate the respectful rebuke, but I honestly think you are over-analyzing a tongue-in-cheek tag comment. There is no "reducing the opposing argument" (?what argument?). I certainly don't think she represents all or most Evangelical Christians. I think she's the unfortunate but inevitable result of the shaky theological reasoning that undercuts the Evangelical movement. This is not me "slapping the Evangelical label on any sort of Christian thing [I] find cringe", it's a legitimate criticism.

I guess I could have initially explained all that more carefully, but I confess I did not expect someone would draw so many conclusions regarding my intentions and meaning from such a simple three word comment.