Information icon.svg Results for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

Got Questions

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Christ died for
our articles about

Christianity
Icon christianity.svg
Schismatics
Devil's in the details

Got Questions is a fundamentalist Christian ministry based on a question-and-answer format focusing on many of the big questions surrounding Christian doctrines, general religion, science, and what the Bible says about such things. It was founded by S. Michael Houdmann in February 2002. The website claims to have over 600,000 questions answered, and says that 75% of all questions asked will be answered "instantly."

Point of view[edit]

Got Questions is written from a typical (both theologically and politically) conservative Evangelical point of view, sometimes in a slightly snarky tone. To no surprise, Got Questions denies Darwinian evolution,[1] supports Young Earth Creationism (although it does not view Old Earth creationism as heretical) and seems to be highly skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.[2] The ministry is also highly supportive of Zionism.[3]

Furthermore, the website claims that "Secularism permeates all facets of our society."[4] Also, Got Questions has apparently found the foolproof methodology of proving Christianity to be the only real correct religion among the approximately 4000 which exist today.[5] This haphazard "framework" usually misrepresents every position that conflicts with theirs, among them being that Agnostics don't believe in absolute truth, Hinduism being Pantheistic, and most importantly uses the Cosmological Argument as the ultimate "Gotcha!" in its supposedly conclusive proof. The more subtle errors usually revolve around simple philosophical aspects, the most blatant example being their claim that "absolute truth" is self-defeating simply because 2+2 = 4.[6][note 1] This Straw man attempts to imply that philosophical belief systems can be absolutely proven as Arithmetical truth.

The site also believes that instead of hormone replacement therapy, reassignment surgery, or other forms of gender transition, transgender people should just get more Jesus, because according to them, gender dysphoria is just the devil feeding people lies. On top of that, they hold there are only two sexes and genders, citing Genesis 1:27, so they deny the existence of intersex and non-binary people too. But what's really insidious is how they frame their message: they're not overtly negative and hateful, they frame dysphoria as if it's a body image issue akin to feeling you're too fat or clumsy, and they do offer sympathy and comforting Bible passages—but it's only so the site can convince trans readers to deny themselves gender-affirming care.[7]

The site frequently contradicts itself on its views on homosexuality, and in one article it claims Christians should not call themselves gay, while in another it is permissive of pastors identifying as gay. They say "practicing" homosexuality is a sin, but that homosexual people who don't express their sexuality are not "practicing homosexuality", and are "same-sex attracted", not gay, which adds to the confusion. They explicitly refuse to use the common definition of homosexuality in their articles, preferring to use the erroneous definition fundamentalist Christians use instead, and they don't try to make articles on the topic succinct.

Though the website says racism is a sin, some of its articles condone racist political policies, and the site can be xenophobic. It says that illegal immigration is a "sin"[8] and that Critical Race Theory is evil and against the gospel.[9] In general, the site upholds Republican viewpoints such as reducing social programs (or what the site calls "socialism") and a strong support of the second amendment.

The site also has a sympathetic attitude towards Jack Chick, not at all addressing the paranoia and conspiracy theories found in his works. The only criticism they have is his kooky portrayal of Catholics, as even they admit the portrayal is off the rails, but they shrug it off, saying it's just a cartoon, which is apt, considering they themselves are anti-Catholic.

They are very critical about the Roman Catholic Church, referring to them as idolatrous non-Christians[10] despite being a site dedicated to answering and defending content in a compilation of books that Roman Catholics canonized.

Got Questions is written from a Calvinist point of view, although it does acknowledge there are other points of view that are within the realms of orthodoxy. Other fundie websites, of course, criticise Houdmann for his Calvinist view, with one of them awarding him a Skull and Crossbones award.[11]

Relative moderation[edit]

Being grounded in orthodox conservative Protestant doctrine, Got Questions is generally more moderate than the variety of fundies seen on the internet, like Jack Chick's ministry and jesus-is-savior. Its articles' tone is generally the most stable of the bunch. Got Questions is in line with big Evangelical lobbying groups like Focus on the Family: some of the views are nutters, but there is a modicum of maturity compared to isolated fringe groups.

This makes for a long list of stopped clock moments, including:

Thank God for SEO[edit]

Got Questions's branch of Christianity is not representative of the majority of Christendom in the world or throughout history. Its Protestant beliefs are at odds with those of the most historical churches, like the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. So why, then, is it almost always the first website that pops up when you search for a Bible question?

Part of the answer is that Got Questions does good Search Engine Optimization. As a result, despite representing a small minority of Christendom, it ranks higher than comparable sites like Catholic Answers.

So, we began to pray, how can we prevent people from visiting these unbiblical sites? In response to our prayers, God led us to search engine optimization. ... God has blessed our efforts...[22]

External links[edit]

Notes[edit]

References[edit]