>>18301763 (lb)
>and yet the fundamentalist' heads did not explode
There were a lot of Christians that got off the bandwagon pointing out those posts, specifically. Lots of others leaned in more. I think it's interesting to see how Q used a tongue-in-cheek approach to painting the picture; leaving everyone enough room to figure it out for their selves.
Christianity has been taken down multiple times by some great thinkers in the past, and yet one has to acknowledge that Christianity played a significant role in rallying people around a belief system effectively as any other religion. That's because it became the tool of authoritarianism to give governments power over the people. Even if the forward approach of ruler/slave failed, the backdrop of religion was always able to be used to influence and control people to bring them back into the fold.
It's interesting that Q chose the Socratic method to deliver their message if you read about the accounts of Socrates' life and what he was accused of, and the circumstances around his death. There's overlap with other historical characters from either historical canon or myth; depending on what sources you put stock in. Regardless, the "Q" folks that a few suspect were within the original "less than 10" that do public engagements all seem to be of the secular humanist persuasion by getting themselves in some hot water from time-to-time with public statements that trigger some subtle cognitive dissonance in the religious right as well as the agnostic/atheist left.
Funny how that works.
At any rate, expecting the average fundamentalist or evangelical to raise enough questions about what they consume