Disc Golf and Church

Summer is a time of almost daily disc golf for me.  Whether by myself or with friends, it is the exercise my body desperately needs and the Zen my soul craves.

However, when I approached Valley Regional Park the other day, the lot was overflowing.  Valley is a multi-purpose park, so it is not unusual to see it jam-packed due to sports tournaments, fairs, or other community happenings.

As I pulled in to meet a friend for a round, I saw a sign at the entrance -"Free Event!"  I knew instantly what the temp stage and bouncy houses in the distance meant.  Such vague signage could mean only one thing: Church Event.

Not just any church... these were obviously evangelicals.  No one else could be so gauche.  I know the Evangelical playbook well.  "Church in the Park" is one way that a completely insular group can convince themselves they are a vital part of the community.

I have been out of church life for about 6 years.  I have returned on occasion for a few Catholic Christmas services and a Mormon baptism or two.  In that time though, I had forgotten how truly awful Evangelical services really are.

First, there was the music.  What a cluster @#$% of mind control.  Chorus lines repeated over and over and over reminding everyone how terrible they are... and how lucky they are to have a God who condescends to love them in spite of how terrible they are.  After a few dozen cycles of that message, we moved on to various choruses of "Our God is so much better than everyone else's god!"

I was having a noticeably more visceral reaction to this than my ex-Mormon buddy, but he did agree it was pretty tacky.  Though annoyed by the triggering cult music of my past, I was still on par by hole 3.

We were out of earshot on holes 5-7.  I was grateful for the brief respite.

Somewhere along the eighth fairway, we came back into audio range.  The service had moved on to the sermon and the pastor was dutifully hitting every trope - the "world" thinks it is enjoying life, but they aren't.  Other religions think they know God, but they don't.  Meaning can only be found in our faith.

He wrapped up the sermon with an emotional appeal to Jesus.  I was grateful to be heading out to the back nine before he could build to the ol' sinner's prayer.

When I got home, I looked up the church to take a peek at their event calendar.  I now know which days this summer to visit another course.

America That Was

A few years ago, my son (14) and I watched the mini-series "11/22/63".  In the story, James Franco goes back in time in an attempt to stop the Kennedy assassination.

There are a number of scenes that depict the racism and sexism of the time.  In one instance, a black woman runs out of gas and walks 12 blocks to a service station.  The attendant refuses to service her and points her to a station a mile away that will serve "her kind".

My son was taken aback by these scenes.  He could not wrap his head around such blatant inhumanity.

It reminded me of a conversation he and I had a few years earlier.  Utah's 10th court was deciding whether gay marriage would be allowed in our state.  There was a leader from the LDS church on the radio stating why the church stood against gay marriage.  My son was concerned about how this would affect friends of ours who had been married in a state that honored gay marriages.  He asked me, "What does the church want?  For them to get a divorce?"

I envy the clarity and openness my children have on these issues.  I did not start to work on things like equality until I was in my 30s.  Even now, approaching 50, I find I am still digging out roots of bad thinking.  For my kids, seeing clearer on issues of race, gender, and equality seems so much more second nature.

My kids give me hope for a better future.  We will need it because many Americans have forgotten where we came from.  They seem eager to undo our progress and send us back to a time when it was acceptable to point to a sign and say, "We don't serve your kind here!"

 

The Function of Apologetics

I have few evangelical Christians in my life or on my Facebook page anymore.  However, the other day one of them made a comment regarding Yahweh, Hillary Clinton, and abortion. Hillary was bad because of her pro-choice position.  I commented on his page that, Yahweh does not serve as a good moral contrast, citing Deuteronomy 21 where Yahweh instructs his followers to stone their children if they are stubborn and rebellious.

Another friend interjected that I was taking that verse out of context (no one ever complains about context when the pleasant stuff is quoted). She provided a link to an article that explained why that verse didn't really say what it seemed to say. I responded:

As I read through that article, it does little to alleviate the severity of that scripture. For me, at the end of the day, there is no context where I am going to watch the stoning of a child and walk away with an explanation that would justify it to me.

I suspect that when a Christian reads a similar scripture in the Koran, an apologetic explanation would carry no further for them either. They would read it and find it horrific, regardless of explanations their Muslim friend might offer them.

I live in the heart of Mormondom. My evangelical friends have dozens of critiques of Mormon scriptures and history – and Mormons have an answer for every one of them (e.g. http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy). Do those answers work? For the Mormon, yes… but not for the evangelical.

The function of apologetics is not to change the mind of the unbeliever- it is to quiet the mind of the believer. No matter the religious stripe, a believer will readily accept an explanation that holds zero water for someone outside the faith. Why? Because the believer is already 95% convinced. They just need the assurance that somewhere out there, the question has been asked and answered. With that assurance in mind, they can proceed along the path – calm and content.

It was the same for me back when I was a believer. The shift came when I began to apply the same standards of judgment to my own religion as well as to others. If something was unacceptable for another religion, then it had to be unacceptable for mine. No longer would I use one set of rules for my beliefs and a different set for the belief of the other. Goal posts did not get to change location depending on whose side was being defended.

I encourage everyone to use the same measure for your faith that you do for others. If you are giving your faith a pass, give that same pass to other faiths. If you have a criticism of another faith, use that same scale for your own.

Rather than engaging my thoughts on the article, she replied, "You are an apostate so I expect that from you."

This exchange was a reminder of why I rarely engage these kinds of exchanges anymore. Outside the evangelical sphere I am a father, teacher, friend, husband, actor, singer, writer, etc. Inside the evangelical sphere there is no need to look any further than apostate.

Her shared article served its purpose. It did nothing to change the mind of this unbeliever, but it soothed her believing mind and halted any possible questions right there.

My Journey to Atheism - Part 2

Here is part 2 of my discussion with my brother about leaving the faith. We talk about why I couldn't stop at Agnosticism and what effect this all had on my family. If you haven't listened to Part 1 yet, you can find it here:  Part 1

My Journey to Atheism - Part 1

I want to recommend to you my brother's podcast. Steve is a Christian believer whose faith journey has led him to ... more open pastures ... in the past half dozen years. Steve and I have both gone through a lot of changes over our decades as brothers, but no matter where we were politically, philosophically, or religiously, we have always managed to have excellent dialogue. One reason is because Steve, at his core, is a great conversationalist and that really comes through in the podcast. Be it discussions of faith, stories from his month long walk on the Camino de Santiago, or opinions about the latest Star Wars movie, his new podcast has proven to be a worthy listen on my list.

In his latest episode, Steve interviews me about my journey from a life of faith to atheism. We talk about Hell theology, life among the Mormons, and how Evangelicals respond to diversity.  We had a great conversation, in fact, it lasted over 2 hours. So Steve split it in half and this is part one. Enjoy!

The Modesty Police Are Barking Up The Wrong Tree

I saw the following picture this morning.  It accompanied an article on the PRI regarding Saudi women registering to vote for the first time.

Although it was an interesting and worthwhile article, the picture caught me for a completely different reason.

In Utah, there is this misguided notion among "modesty" minded folks that, if we can just cover up women - make sure their dresses are long enough, cover the cleavage, spare the boys those sinful shoulders - we can somehow get our poor males to behave themselves.

I love the PRI picture, because it calls bullshit on that whole premise. Obviously, the dress choices of the ladies does not change a darn thing...

Swearing As A Moral Issue

This morning the Deseret News, one of Salt Lake's two primary newspapers, ran an opinion piece about the Book of Mormon musical. Being what and where it is, this musical is getting a little more press attention than is typically the case.

The piece hit a nerve with me and prompted me to write about an idea that has been spinning in my head for a while. The title of the article was "Profanity laced productions demonstrate society's moral decline."

If you spend any time with believers, particular of the more conservative stripe, they will let you know that they don't like swearing. If you spend time with such people regularly, they will let you know about their distaste for swearing... regularly.

In fact, similar to the title on the article, they will often articulate something beyond mere distaste. A moral element will become attached. Swearing is not just distasteful, it is immoral.

This is a common religious drum to beat and yet, even while I was still a believer, something struck me as disingenuous about all of the purity proclamations regarding words. How could a word be so encrusted with... evil?

I remember the first time I realized that there might be something amiss about all of the preening that goes on in religious circles concerning swear words. I was 16 and spending a number of weeks backpacking in Israel. A Bedouin chief was giving a friend of mine and I a tour through the Negev desert on camel back. The chief spoke at least 7 languages that I knew of.

My camel and I were alongside the chief when nature called. I said to him, "Hey, can we stop? I gotta go." He looked at me quizzically. "I have to go to the bathroom," I amended. He cocked his head a little more to the side, trying to interpret my meaning.

"He has to take a shit!" my friend called from behind us.

The chieftain's eyes lit with understanding and he smiled. "Oh yes! Sheet! We stop!"

I reflected later that, contrary to what my religious community taught me, my friend had done nothing immoral, neither had the chief. "Shit" was just a word.... nothing more. Any negative values were our associations, but there was nothing inherently moral or immoral about the word.

So then, why does the issue of swearing garner such attention and bluster among religious folks? Why do they try to make it a MORAL issue?

My family and I recently made the trip back to Michigan to visit all of our relatives. Most of these folks are Christian but in the past few years I find myself in Christian circles less and less. One thing that really stood out to me was how much the issue of swearing came up. I was constantly being informed that they don't swear, they don't like entertainment that swears, and they don't like to socialize with people that swear. Spend anytime with a religious conservative, and they will let you know that they don't swear.

Why?

My theory is that one can get a lot of piety points on this issue with very little cost. In fact, no cost. If you are going to resist poverty, or not gossip, or love your enemy... there is going to be some work involved. It will cost you. To make a fuss about swearing costs nothing, and yet it lets the religious person get a sense that they have made a moral step up.

Moving out of faith has shown me that this maneuver is a farce. Religion encourages the believer to develop many contrived moral positions. As an atheist, I have come to realize that true moral foundations are built on harm and help. Does an action harm others? Does an action help others? Swearing affects neither of these questions. It is a question of mores' not of morals.

Yet, the writer of the Deseret News opinion piece has convinced himself that he is making a moral statement when he announces his aversion to swearing. He isn't. He is just taking his place alongside scores of religious figures, both present and historical, who have learned to speak fluent religion on a topic that changes nothing.

Or, as St. Paul observed, he has learned to bang the gong and clang the cymbal.

"Ya Gotta Believe Something, Right?"

Last week, I was using public transit to get to work. Occasionally, one gets a chatty bus driver. During our conversation it came up that I am originally from Detroit, which brought the usual question:

"What brought you out here to Salt Lake?"

I try to avoid that question, but often there is no getting around it. People want to know. The problem is, it is a lot to tell in a short duration, but I have worked it out:

"I came out here to help start an evangelical church. However, we parted ways when I started to lose my faith, and I am now an atheist."

I get varied responses to this declaration, but his was the most common:

"Oh...... I'm sorry....."

The bus driver then began to fill me in on his spiritual journey. He was raised in a Mormon household, went on a mission, but he doesn't really practice anymore.

"I'm still a member. I guess I still believe. So... I suppose I am what they call a Jack-Mormon".

As you know, or probably have guessed, a Jack-Mormon is the term for Mormons who are not active in their faith. They are still part of the culture, perhaps attend church for baptisms and other ceremonies occasionally. But for all intent and purposes, they are fairly disconnected.

For the few minutes remaining in our trip, he stayed on religion. He told me about various family members who had turned away from faith but came back. How, at some point, he wants to start attending church more.

He was still talking when we came to my stop and the bus pulled to the curb. I thanked him for the lift and stepped off the bus. He called out one parting comment:

"I mean hey.... ya gotta believe something, right?"

I turned back and smiled:

"No..... you really don't."

And the bus pulled away.

The "ya gotta believe something" line is a refrain I often hear from nominal believers. For all practical purposes my bus driver doesn't believe. If he believed his faith he would be doing what his faith wants him to do: attend church, study his scriptures, tithe, seek converts, etc.  He does none of that, yet he still "believes".  Why is that?

My suspicion is that the cost is too high socially. It is a battle with family, friends, co-workers, (and himself), that he is simply not interested in engaging. "Ya gotta believe something" is simply the path of least resistance.

Ten years or so from now, I believe folks like the bus driver will easily accept a position of atheism. Right now the social stress is simply not worth it... but that is changing. For all of the growth unbelief has seen in the past decade, it's biggest blossoming is still ahead. As social acceptability of unbelief grows, a lot of people like my bus driver are going to recognize their lack of engagement for what it really is - a lack of belief.

Rather than feeling they HAVE to believe something, they will recognize... no, you really don't.

Facebook Faith #50 Writing Is Sacred

I write quite a bit.  I enjoy the process of writing like I enjoy a good conversation.

I believe written conversations have an advantage of being able to take time to present an issue or idea, or to formulate a response.

When someone poses questions or presents an argument to me in written format, I like being able to go through their writing multiple times, maybe even quoting from it, to make sure I have honestly and adequately addressed their thoughts.  Sometimes I will rewrite things four or five times before hitting send.

So, when someone asks me to respond to something, and I take the time to do so... only to have them delete it.... that doesn't tend to sit well with me.

This came about due to an old friend who recently friended me on Facebook.  This person is a Christian... and... well ...  when you are an atheist, you can't help but categorize your believing friends under various headings.  There is the fundamentalist asshole you keep around purely for entertainment purposes.  There are the good souls you seem to relate to in EVERY way other than their theism, so you accept each other as-is.  There are the ones who have never been particularly active in their faith, yet find it a bit disturbing that you are an atheist.

I am sure I could come up with a number of others if I sat here and thought about it, but in this case, this is the Christian who believes you left the faith because you never had exposure to REAL Christianity.  Your atheism is actually somewhat understandable, maybe even justified... because, like Coke, you just need the real thing.  If you could only go to their church, or hear this or that pastor, or read a certain book.... you would see.

In that vein, this person posted an article by Shane Claiborne and tagged me in it, asking for my thoughts.  I had read the article back when it came out in 2009, but I read it again, and then a third time before writing.

Not long after my posting, my response was deleted.

I hate when people do that... particularly if that was the only copy available of what I wrote. Fortunately, I had written this response in Word. When I asked her why she deleted it, she said that she felt my response would be troubling to many of her believing friends. She deleted and blocked me soon after.

So, since I took time to write that response, I want it to exist somewhere... so here it is.  If you have gotten this far, you may want to read the Claiborne article (it's short).  I do appreciate theologically liberal, good folks like Shane Claiborne.  However, I still find they carry a bagful of false assumptions about those not in their faith, some of which I address below. So without further ado:

I have always appreciated Shane’s generous and compassionate heart.  I think he is a humanist, and I admire that, because he is willing to put the needs of people above the dictates of his religion’s dogma (to a degree).

However, he steps into the usual misdirections most religious folks fall, in that he cannot not see outside his own perspective.  For example, from the article:

“To all my nonbelieving, sort-of-believing, and used-to-be-believing friends: I feel like I should begin with a confession. I am sorry that so often the biggest obstacle to God has been Christians. Christians who have had so much to say with our mouths and so little to show with our lives. I am sorry that so often we have forgotten the Christ of our Christianity.”

From the beginning he is clear that he sees the world with bi-polar lenses, those who see religion his way… and everybody else.  He defines everyone who does not accept his religion - by his religion.  If someone does not believe, it is because they have not heard the right message, or been to the right church.  Perhaps they have been wounded by someone in the faith.  Maybe their heart is hard or bitter toward God because of some pain in their life.  If they could just meet the Jesus he knows.

I assume Shane does not believe in Mormonism. He doesn’t believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God's restoration, and he doesn’t believe Mormons are God's one true church on the earth. He just doesn’t believe any of it to be true.  

However picture if a good chunk of his community and family were telling him that it isn't that he doesn’t believe it... rather, it is because he met some bad Mormons, or went to a bad ward, or just hadn’t experienced TRUE Mormonism. Shayne could try to explain that he really just didn’t believe – but they respond that his heart is hard and he should be open to what Joseph Smith might be saying to him.

He might appreciate the sincerity of these folks (the first couple dozen times) but he would still find the whole thing absurd.

I appreciate Shane’s sincerity, but I still find the whole thing absurd.

Also, it is very clear to me that, like all Christians, Shane is making up his own Jesus.  Shane says, “if you choose Jesus, may it not be simply because of a fear of hell or hope for mansions in heaven.”

He does this a few times – he has an idea of Jesus in his head that is really great… but then he runs into that scriptural Jesus who isn't always so great…  Jesus does woo with rewards and punishments… big rewards and punishments.  That doesn't work for Shane, so he deflects.

Another example, “I was recently asked by a non-Christian friend if I thought he was going to hell. I said, "I hope not. It will be hard to enjoy heaven without you."  Again… that bothers him.  It would bother ANY good person… but he doesn’t know what to do with it, so he makes it a joke.

I talk with Christians all the time who speak like this.  They sidestep Hell, try to make it not sound as bad as the Bible does, throw up their hands and say its not for me to judge, etc.  They are trying to avoid the very real fact that their God presented in scripture has set up a system where you love him or pay dearly.  At least that’s how he is in some parts… other parts not so much.  I don’t believe the bible is consistent.

So what do I think?  I think Shane is a decent human being, trying to be decent, in a religion that is often not decent.  He works hard at finding the diamonds in the rough… focusing on the generous and compassionate parts of his Bible, while choosing – consciously or subconsciously- to avoid the more horrible bits.  I just think that generates a lot of un-needed work and stress.  Let the religion go, continue to be decent, then you won’t have to worry about always having to come up with clever ways to make those bad bits sound good for the sake of fidelity to a religion.

Facebook Faith #47 Bill Burr and Curling

"Non-theists already have a good idea that they are wrong and don't care.... "

I was in a Facebook discussion recently where a believing gentleman said the above quote. It kind of shocked me, because I had never heard a believer really articulate that to a non-believer.

As a believer, I had heard similar things said within our own circles. Whether spoken aloud or not, we all believed that those of outside faiths, or no faith, really - deep down - knew they were wrong. They just clung to their ideas out of arrogance or rebellion. In their pride, they would never admit that we were right. I think that was why the notion of Hell didn't bother us too much. They really were choosing Hell, and in the end we would finally be proven right!

Those thoughts fell apart for me as I began to get to know my Mormon neighbors after moving out to Salt Lake City. Listening to their stories and hearing their hearts, I could not deny that they believed their stories as sincerely as we did ours.

So... if I believe my stories to be true... and they believe their stories to be true... and we both have stories of transformation and redemption occurring in the lives of people... maybe... maybe transformation is not a holy thing... but a human thing...

and... here I am.

This was brought to mind this morning as I watched the comedian Bill Burr, talk about his exit from faith. In his case, he realized thinking the stories of other religions absurd, might apply to his stories as well. I particularly relate to his analogy of how he "let go" of religion.... spot on!

Facebook Faith # 46: Heresy Is A Beautiful Thing!

The following is a conversation I had on Facebook recently. A friend had brought up her concerns with Rob Bell's recent comments concerning the Bible and Homosexuality. I put in my two cents that I thought Bell was being a little misunderstood. That probably would have been the end of my commentary, but an old church mate jumped in with her two cents implying Bell was a heretic.

I find the topic of heresy fascinating. Most of the greatest souls our world has ever known were regarded as heretics by the religious powers of their time. They advanced science, philosophy, human rights, and even religion... all while being derided by the protectors of orthodoxy.

Given that, it amazes me that we cannot seem to learn the folly of using the charge of heresy to shut down ideas and close up our ears. No, like EF below, Orthodoxy is real and must be defended... it "is a matter of life and death."  It never occurs to her that it might just be a little too convenient that, out of the myriad of voices out there claiming Orthodoxy, hers just happens to be the right one! Well, not hers... it's "God's".  :)

Anyway, below is the tennis match between EF and me. My friend JL jumps in and adeptly shows an example of what I am confident are MANY cherry pickings of scripture on EF's part. As I discovered in my many years in church circles, NO ONE cherry picks scripture from the bible more than the person who says they don't cherry pick scripture.  :)

Here it is:

• 

  Andrew Hackman Not that I am a defender of Bell, but I think his point was not that HE felt those letters were irrelevant... but using those letters to others, and that is one's only reasoning, is not going to make much impact. Anymore than someone quoting the Book of Mormon to an Evangelical as a reason one should or should not do this or that. The average Evangelical would just roll their eyes and say, "Why do I care what the Book of Mormon says?" Likewise would be the reaction of a non-Christian with the Bible.

  2 hrs · Edited · Like · 2
• 
  
• 

  AK Andrew Hackman...Point taken!

  3 hrs · Like · 2
• 
  
• 

  RB Christianity can't conform to modern times. I think that's the problem that people don't see. 
  
• 
  
• 

  RM Hebrews 13 reminds the church: 7Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. 8Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. 9Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.… If we truly believe in His word then He has not and will not change. Why would we NOT continue to speak this truth 2000 years later. Are the 10 Commandments irrelevant in society too? Can you only imagine if society followed the 10 Commandments? Simple acts of kindness and obedience. We are human. We are sinners. We need a savior. And I THANK God my Savior does NOT change. I take great comfort in that.

  2 hrs · Like · 3
• 

  BP Scripture has to be given context...all of the Epistles were written in a particular time and in a particular place and addressing a specific issue...can you imagine if someone just opened your email and picked something to read with no context? Now, the Bible is sacred...the Holy Spirit was involved in the Canon being decided upon, so we know it's not just a random collection of stories and letters...it was not chosen randomly from someone's inbox...but, the Holy Scripture still has context. To just quote back texts, or "letters from 2,000 years ago" to defend a point is a disservice to the scripture and the argument. Scripture is sacred, but it still must be read in context to get at its intended meaning for the original hearers, and for readers today.

  2 hrs · Like · 1
• 

  EF Studied heresy a bit in Oxford, and, well...

  2 hrs · Like · 1
• 
  
• 

  BP  EF...who is the heretic? Me? Rob Bell? I'm not asking to start an argument...didn't understand what you were getting at with your comment.

  2 hrs · Like · 1
• 
  
• 

  Andrew Hackman heretic= that other religious person who does not have the same religious thoughts as me.

  2 hrs · Edited · Like · 3
• 
  
• 

  RB Agreed. I have always loved Rob Bell but using the word "irrelevant" for the church felt like a blow to the stomach. I love his teachings about journeying with God. His "think out outside the box" abilities have spoken to my soul. But today his words deeply saddened me. There are many things I would like to take out of the Bible for my benefit and homosexuality is one of them. I struggled with the Bible's stance on it. But that being said, for me it's all or nothing.

  1 hr · Like · 1
• 

  EF Andrew Hackman actually, that would be more like "judging" -- kind of like what you do to me  that being said, herasy is a serious thing, and it is a serious offense to God. Several religious formed outside of Orthodox Christianity from one belief that was un-Orthodox. Be it marriage, the resurrection of Christ, the authority of Scripture... and several of these teachers that strayed from doctrine lead millions astray. It's a real thing, and it's a serious thing. Much of the NT warns against it. It's not a word I throw around lightly, and certainly not something you use when you simply disagree.

  1 hr · Like
• 
  
• 

  Andrew Hackman One person's heresy is another's orthodoxy. There are tens of thousands of different strands of Christianity alone (and more historically)... not even getting into the myriads of other religions.... Each, except for a few gracious strands, think all the others are off... not telling the story right, not representing the deity right, not interpreting right, not baptizing right... the list of errors in the "other" group can be quite prodigious. But thankfully, "we" have got our act together. 
  
  As an outsider, I find one Christian calling another Christian heretic is truly a case of pot calling kettle black. 

  53 mins · Like
• 

  EF  hi Andrew. I agree, the word can be overused. And I can see why this to outsiders would be confusing. But Orthodox Christianity does exist, and so does heresy, and it's not defined by one person's opinions. Several denominations exist within this scope. It's why there can be unity among diversity. And while this unity will at times look fragmented, we are to guard against heresy. I am speaking to myself, as well! I think we are all prone to it, as we all want our desires to be met. Heresy is something contrary to doctrine, and while for many years I enjoyed Bell's videos, I find his theology (on a number of key issues) outside the scope of Biblical Christianity.

  44 mins · Like · 2
• 

  JL Well if we want to follow a strict biblical definition of marriage we better figure out which of these is correct. Or do we remove those we don't like for our own benefit? https://bobcargill.files.wordpress.com/.../biblical...
  

  
  

  

  
  

  BOBCARGILL.FILES.WORDPRESS.COM

  
  

  33 mins · Like · 1
• 

  EF JL if you start looking at MAN and WOMEN... the way we define things, the way we live, our standards, what we think is right/ok/acceptable vs. the character and nature of God himself, you are likely to never, ever embrace the Gospel truth

  30 mins · Like
• 

  Andrew Hackman And I know many Christians who view your slice of Christianity as being outside of the scope of Jesus Christianity. TomAto/ Tomato, PotAto/Potato. Your saying you are in the right slice is just words... with no more merit or credibility than anyone else's. Everyone lobs volleys as to the points they think are in error within the other's camp... each slice claiming the high ground. You arguing to me that you are in the right slice, while the others are in heresy..... well.... imagine if you were talking to a member of the FLDS church, and the LDS church... and each were trying to explain why the OTHER is wrong in their doctrine. From your perspective, their arguments are irrelevant.
  
  It reminds me of an encounter just before we moved out to Salt Lake. A Jehovah's Witness stopped me as I was getting some Starbucks. We talked for a bit and he closed by asking if we could talk again. I told him that I was moving to Salt Lake City the next week. He said, "Salt Lake City? Don't a lot of Mormons live out there? Aren't they a cult?" I had to repress a grin... His statement was filled with such irony!
  
  Of course, it would be another 8 years or so before I caught the full irony. 

  28 mins · Like
• 

  EF Andrew Hackman you don't know my slice of Christianity, and that is precisely the point I am making. My slice doesn't matter. Being in line with Scripture does. I seek to confirm my beliefs around His... not the other way around. And just for kicks it might be fun for you to study the beginning of the Jehovah Witness movement. It began from one person having a false belief on the nature of God. It was heresy. That belief continues to lead millions astray to this day. Not Potato/PotAto... life and death.

  24 mins · Like
• 

  Andrew Hackman Whichever slice, it is just one of many... claiming dominance... and declaring it's uniqueness.... just like all the others. 

  21 mins · Like
• 

  MG  "The Message that points to Christ on the Cross seems like silliness to those hellbent on destruction, but for those on the way of salvation it makes perfect sense." - the first letter from Paul to the church in Corinth written around 55 AD(CE), first chapter, 18th verse, from The Message translation

  21 mins · Like · 1
• 

  Andrew Hackman " but for those on the way of salvation it makes perfect sense. " An argument advanced by Mormons as well.  Not to belabor a point, but really... every slice is going to make that argument in some form or fashion.

  17 mins · Like
• 

  JL  EF please don't preach to us. Paul was very clear that women should not preach especially to men. That is biblical. Or was that letter really just for that specific church due to context?

  14 mins · Like
• 
  
• 

  EF JL are we in church or is this Facebook? #eyeroll

  13 mins · Like
• 
  
• 

  JL 1 Timothy 2:12 says nothing about being in a church.

  10 mins · Like