Recruiting forum off topic thread (no politics, covid, or hot button issues)

[Checker_the_Shire]

John 5:18--Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Keep reading…John 11:47-50
So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered r the council and said, What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nations should perish.”

 

[SugarCC]

All kinds of ways to have a productive discussion and you chose trolling. Nice. I'll try to stick to Colossians 4:6 and if trolling is the response, then so be it.

If directly quoting scripture is trolling...

Seems you just don't like the taste of that kind of salt. Must prefer the unsavory kind.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

If directly quoting scripture is trolling...

Seems you just don't like the taste of that kind of salt. Must prefer the unsavory kind.

My original post didn't attack or disparage anyone yet you felt the need to take shots at me implying I'm not a fan of several prominent figures in my own religion. What's your motive?

"Seems you just don't like the taste of that kind of salt. Must prefer the unsavory kind."

You're just being rude to someone who hasn't done a thing to you. That's the trolling...not the short bit of scripture you posted.

 

[SugarCC]

My original post didn't attack or disparage anyone yet you felt the need to take shots at me implying I'm not a fan of several prominent figures in my own religion. What's your motive?

"Seems you just don't like the taste of that kind of salt. Must prefer the unsavory kind."

You're just being rude to someone who hasn't done a thing to you. That's the trolling...not the short bit of scripture you posted.

My first reply was more messing around with you than anything; but, with a shot of truth added to it...I have a feeling that John the Baptist would be calling out the vipers and preaching repentance moreso today than back then...and, at the same volume. Wouldn't you agree "the kingdom of heaven" is closer at hand today, than it was 2000 years ago? And, you're opposed to shouting the good news from the mountain tops??

Vipers then, vipers today. Sin then, sin today. That's where the wise words of Solomon come in...same today as it was then, we just have electricity now. Still the righteous and unrighteous, same as generations past...the audience hasn't changed a bit, and has nothing at all to do with "forward-thinking".

I could go on, but I'll leave it at this...right before ascension, the Lord left each one of us, his disciples, with this: "Go ye into ALL the world, and preach the gospel to EVERY creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned".

Keep in mind, SugarCC didn't say that, your Lord and master, Jesus Christ, did.
 

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

My first reply was more messing around with you than anything; but, with a shot of truth added to it...I have a feeling that John the Baptist would be calling out the vipers and preaching repentance moreso today than back then...and, at the same volume. Wouldn't you agree "the kingdom of heaven" is closer at hand today, than it was 2000 years ago? And, you're opposed to shouting the good news from the mountain tops??

Vipers then, vipers today. Sin then, sin today. That's where the wise words of Solomon come in...same today as it was then, we just have electricity now. Still the righteous and unrighteous, same as generations past...the audience hasn't changed a bit, and has nothing at all to do with "forward-thinking".

I could go on, but I'll leave it at this...right before ascension, the Lord left each one of us, his disciples, with this: "Go ye into ALL the world, and preach the gospel to EVERY creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned".

Keep in mind, SugarCC didn't say that, your Lord and master, Jesus Christ, did.
 

"Preach the gospel" was the command. It's up to us how we decide to go about doing it. I simply shared my personal preferences about that. I also think the audience of non-believers today are probably more resistant than those back in Jesus' time just because Christianity isn't new to folks now and most non-believers probably already have some negative preconceived notions to overcome...hence them being non-believers. Again, just my personal perspective and not intending to step on toes. If some folks want to yell the good word...have at it. I just haven't witnessed any second comings of John the Baptist. It's usually Brother Steve blowing out ear drums in front of Walmart with his bullhorn. I don't feel like I'm wrong in saying that it might not appeal to folks.

 

[SugarCC]

"Preach the gospel" was the command. It's up to us how we decide to go about doing it. I simply shared my personal preferences about that. I also think the audience of non-believers today are probably more resistant than those back in Jesus' time just because Christianity isn't new to folks now and most non-believers probably already have some negative preconceived notions to overcome...hence them being non-believers. Again, just my personal perspective and not intending to step on toes. If some folks want to yell the good word...have at it. I just haven't witnessed any second comings of John the Baptist. It's usually Brother Steve blowing out ear drums in front of Walmart with his bullhorn. I don't feel like I'm wrong in saying that it might not appeal to folks.

Just so I'm understanding...you "think the audience of non-believers today are probably more resistant than those back in Jesus' time"?

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Just so I'm understanding...you "think the audience of non-believers today are probably more resistant than those back in Jesus' time"?

I know what you're trying to angle towards, so let's be clear. I'm just talking about people even stopping to hear the message. I was talking about the "shout from the rooftops" method. I think more people would stop and listen back then compared to now. I'm not talking about what actions might come beyond that. This really feels like you're aiming for an argument at this point. Are you a street preacher? That would explain the motive behind your responses. Sorry that I don't think that method is super effective these days. I'm really not sure why you care enough about what I think to keep pursuing a debate/argument.

 

[Orange_Crush]

"Preach the gospel" was the command. It's up to us how we decide to go about doing it. I simply shared my personal preferences about that. I also think the audience of non-believers today are probably more resistant than those back in Jesus' time just because Christianity isn't new to folks now and most non-believers probably already have some negative preconceived notions to overcome...hence them being non-believers. Again, just my personal perspective and not intending to step on toes. If some folks want to yell the good word...have at it. I just haven't witnessed any second comings of John the Baptist. It's usually Brother Steve blowing out ear drums in front of Walmart with his bullhorn. I don't feel like I'm wrong in saying that it might not appeal to folks.

Paul said that the gospel will be the scent of death to those who will reject it, and foolishness to those who will not accepts it, but assured us that to some it will be the scent of life; and that the "foolishness" of God is more wisdom than all. He didn't put an expiration date on that. I know you told me not to waste my time trying to change your perspective, but I think we Christians should always be willing to weigh our personal perspectives against scripture.

Again, the purpose of evangelism isn't in the numbers who accept it. It's not meant to be played defensively, afraid of how many people will reject it. The rejection path is wide and the acceptance path is narrow. That should be no surprise. And again, the power isn't in how we meticulously foster a platform or judge someone's susceptibility. It is a supernatural activity. The power is the gospel.

This is the last I'll bother you with it.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Paul said that the gospel will be the scent of death to those who will reject it, and foolishness to those who will not accepts it, but assured us that to some it will be the scent of life; and that the "foolishness" of God is more wisdom than all. He didn't put an expiration date on that. I know you told me not to waste my time trying to change your perspective, but I think we Christians should always be willing to weigh our personal perspectives against scripture.

Again, the purpose of evangelism isn't in the numbers who accept it. It's not meant to be played defensively, afraid of how many people will reject it. The rejection path is wide and the acceptance path is narrow. That should be no surprise. And again, the power isn't in how we meticulously foster a platform or judge someone's susceptibility. It is a supernatural activity. The power is the gospel.

This is the last I'll bother you with it.

I don't disagree with that, but I don't see how what I said necessarily disagrees with that. I think some folks are reading something more into what I said. I post on my phone and don't feel like typing out long detailed responses with my thumbs. I guess that's leaving too much up to interpretation when I don't go into depth about the nuances of what I'm expressing. Saying that I don't find shouting the message to be the most effective method for today's audience does not equal me saying that the power is all in the method...just that it matters. If it didn't, then vocally speaking to a deaf man or handing a blind man a Bible would suffice. I really don't understand what was so offensive and off-base about my viewpoint that some felt the need to correct it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't disagree with that, but I don't see how what I said necessarily disagrees with that. I think some folks are reading something more into what I said. I post on my phone and don't feel like typing out long detailed responses with my thumbs. I guess that's leaving too much up to interpretation when I don't go into depth about the nuances of what I'm expressing. Saying that I don't find shouting the message to be the most effective method for today's audience does not equal me saying that the power is all in the method...just that it matters. If it didn't, then vocally speaking to a deaf man or handing a blind man a Bible would suffice. I really don't understand what was so offensive and off-base about my viewpoint that some felt the need to correct it.

You literally said that you've never felt that public preaching of the gospel is productive.

Christian here. Don't agree with everything you said, but I think you're being respectful and I like hearing your viewpoint. Personally, I feel like the best way I can share my beliefs is by being a good person first and then sharing when someone else is receptive after earning their trust. I've never felt that shouting from the rooftops, so to speak, was a productive way to open ears/minds/hearts...so I get some of what you're saying.

When challenged on it (via tongue in cheek reference), you defended your position by claiming 2000 years difference, and evolved cultural norms. Inherent in the original claim was the belief that (much of?) the power of the interaction is in the fostered relationship of the evangelist. Inherent in the defense is the belief that the power of the interaction is in cultural receptiveness. The pertinent scriptural references in response blatantly tell us that the power is in the gospel itself, that this world system in all of its cultural variants will always be resistant to the gospel. Period. The references also indicate that "acceptance" isn't our business, nor is it the judgment of success. Every bit of that is between the hearer and God.

And to answer a question posed to someone else above, one doesn't have to be a street preacher to care enough to publicly respond to a public statement by a professing Christian about the gospel and evangelism. I know many street preachers and pray for them daily. They do so selflessly and in love for the people they don't even know. They subject themselves to public ridicule, and sadly much of that ridicule comes from professing believers. When bad theology is espoused online to potentially further a poor view of evangelism/evangelists in the church, I believe polemic responses are appropriate.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Keep reading…John 11:47-50
So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered r the council and said, What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nations should perish.”

Yessir. I think the point is that they plotted to kill him because His public message was offensive, as well as to preserve their own place/power. It's not either/or.

The point made is that Jesus didn't pick His public message according to what He thought would be culturally accepted. Obviously, John 5 illustrates that. Not sure why we'd need to undermine that point with John 11, as they're not contradictory of one another.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

You literally said that you've never felt that public preaching of the gospel is productive.

This explains the problem. I said "shouting from the rooftops". I was talking about the street preachers that get out their bullhorn and yell at folks. I even referenced a "Brother Steve" in a previous post. You taking that as all public preaching is your prerogative and absolutely not what I was trying to say. Again, I don't need you straightening me out on the subject. Like I said before, I'm typing with my thumbs and sharing a viewpoint without all the nuances with the assumption that folks won't try to read more into it than what is there and manipulate it into an argument they want to have. I don't understand why my opinion matters so much to you and what would motivate you to continue to pursue this. It's ridiculous.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This explains the problem. I said "shouting from the rooftops". I was talking about the street preachers that get out their bullhorn and yell at folks. I even referenced a "Brother Steve" in a previous post. You taking that as all public preaching is your prerogative and absolutely not what I was trying to say. Again, I don't need you straightening me out on the subject. Like I said before, I'm typing with my thumbs and sharing a viewpoint without all the nuances with the assumption that folks won't try to read more into it than what is there and manipulate it into an argument they want to have. I don't understand why my opinion matters so much to you and what would motivate you to continue to pursue this. It's ridiculous.

For the record, I referenced street preachers as well. That's much of the context I'm defending. And like I said, you took the initiative to publicly post an opinion about evangelism and street preaching that could help form the opinions of others. It's an important subject. Important enough to (A) not do so cavalierly if you don't care enough to do so with nuance, and (B) do so with an eye toward what scripture actually says about it.

No one is forcing you to do either. And I am in no way "manipulating it into an argument". I am submitting it to a scriptural perspective. You don't have to participate one way or the other.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

For the record, I referenced street preachers as well. That's much of the context I'm defending. And like I said, you took the initiative to publicly post an opinion about evangelism and street preaching that could help form the opinions of others. It's an important subject. Important enough to (A) not do so cavalierly if you don't care enough to do so with nuance, and (B) do so with an eye toward what scripture actually says about it.

No one is forcing you to do either. And I am in no way "manipulating it into an argument". I am submitting it to a scriptural perspective. You don't have to participate one way or the other.

As I said before, I don't need you setting me straight. If you find the opinion I shared to be such a threat, then you can share a different one without coming at me directly. You took way more from what I was saying than what was actually there. With that said, it's time to end this exchange. I'm trying to be respectful, but this is getting old. Share whatever you want...just leave me out of it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

As I said before, I don't need you setting me straight. If you find the opinion I shared to be such a threat, then you can share a different one without coming at me directly. You took way more from what I was saying than what was actually there. With that said, it's time to end this exchange. I'm trying to be respectful, but this is getting old. Share whatever you want...just leave me out of it.

I'm OK with that. I said early on this morning that that would be my last time bothering you. You kept the conversation going. Now you seem offended that the conversation continued.

Paul said that the gospel will be the scent of death to those who will reject it, and foolishness to those who will not accepts it, but assured us that to some it will be the scent of life; and that the "foolishness" of God is more wisdom than all. He didn't put an expiration date on that. I know you told me not to waste my time trying to change your perspective, but I think we Christians should always be willing to weigh our personal perspectives against scripture.

Again, the purpose of evangelism isn't in the numbers who accept it. It's not meant to be played defensively, afraid of how many people will reject it. The rejection path is wide and the acceptance path is narrow. That should be no surprise. And again, the power isn't in how we meticulously foster a platform or judge someone's susceptibility. It is a supernatural activity. The power is the gospel.

This is the last I'll bother you with it.

I don't disagree with that, but I don't see how what I said necessarily disagrees with that. I think some folks are reading something more into what I said. I post on my phone and don't feel like typing out long detailed responses with my thumbs. I guess that's leaving too much up to interpretation when I don't go into depth about the nuances of what I'm expressing. Saying that I don't find shouting the message to be the most effective method for today's audience does not equal me saying that the power is all in the method...just that it matters. If it didn't, then vocally speaking to a deaf man or handing a blind man a Bible would suffice. I really don't understand what was so offensive and off-base about my viewpoint that some felt the need to correct it.

And in response to your repeated "I don't need you..." Pretty much every time I've responded to you, it's been quoting scripture and wanting to discuss your views through a Biblical lens. I won't feel in the wrong for having done so.

Have a good day, though.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

I'm OK with that. I said early on this morning that that would be my last time bothering you. You kept the conversation going. Now you seem offended that the conversation continued.




And in response to your repeated "I don't need you..." Pretty much every time I've responded to you, it's been quoting scripture and wanting to discuss your views through a Biblical lens. I won't feel in the wrong for having done so.

Have a good day, though.

Ok, I have one simple question. Had I said "street preachers yelling through bullhorns" instead of the metaphor "shouting from the rooftops", would that have resulted in the same response from you?

 

[SugarCC]

I know what you're trying to angle towards, so let's be clear. I'm just talking about people even stopping to hear the message. I was talking about the "shout from the rooftops" method. I think more people would stop and listen back then compared to now. I'm not talking about what actions might come beyond that. This really feels like you're aiming for an argument at this point. Are you a street preacher? That would explain the motive behind your responses. Sorry that I don't think that method is super effective these days. I'm really not sure why you care enough about what I think to keep pursuing a debate/argument.

No, not a street preacher...just a responder to outrageous statements, who happens to know what the Bible says. The reason you feel I'm "aiming for an argument", is only because I'm not agreeing with you. I have a feeling you're the type of person who, if not agreed with on all things, then challenged, you believe the person challenging you is "aiming for an argument", because there's no way you could possibly be wrong.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm going to tell a story. It's not directed "at" anyone as much as to illustrate my overarching point and/or concern here, and why I care enough to debate the mindset as offered.

A recent-former prostitute showed up at church. She showed up afraid that no one would accept her, but driven to the first open church service she found because the night before she'd sat and listened to a "street preacher" with a portable PA preach the gospel in a bad neighborhood, while most passers-by mocked, over-shouted or just walked by as if trying to ignore him. He was a full on fire and brimstone, quoting scriptures about sin and hell, as well as grace, love, acceptance, and liberation.

The former-prostitute said that she was entranced by the message. She said that she was the last person that needed to be convinced that she was a sinner, and that if the God of the Bible existed, she had no hope. But she was the one that most needed to hear that He is a God of grace that loves her enough to have died for her before she became what she became, knowing full well she'd become what she became. She'd assumed the first half of the gospel, but heard the second half over that PA. She said that she quietly prayed, "God, if what he said is true, I want to be yours." The street preacher never even knew the effects of his preaching.

She was transformed. Left her life. Miraculously escaped her pimp, and was healed of the addictions that had put her where she was. Last I heard, she is in another city, married, and leading a women's Bible study and outreach for battered and addicted women.

The gospel is the Power of the God unto salvation for those who are being saved. It is the scent of death to those who are dying, but the fragrance of life to those who may humble themselves to its power. It is the power of God to transformation. It is hope to the hopeless. It is power the powerless. It is humility to the proud. It is love to the unloved who think themselves unlovable.

It will always be countercultural; thus it will never be dependent on cultural sensibilities or patterns of acceptance. When God's people are publicly performing this countercultural mission, it will naturally look odd, useless, or even plain wrong to those pieces of us that are formed by this humanistic culture in which we were formed.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Ok, I have one simple question. Had I said "street preachers yelling through bullhorns" instead of the metaphor "shouting from the rooftops", would that have resulted in the same response from you?

And to answer a question posed to someone else above, one doesn't have to be a street preacher to care enough to publicly respond to a public statement by a professing Christian about the gospel and evangelism. I know many street preachers and pray for them daily. They do so selflessly and in love for the people they don't even know. They subject themselves to public ridicule, and sadly much of that ridicule comes from professing believers. When bad theology is espoused online to potentially further a poor view of evangelism/evangelists in the church, I believe polemic responses are appropriate.

Also see my story above.

We all have those parts of ourselves and thinking that are formed by the humanistic world around us. We can go on assuming that we are right, or we can question everything and filter it through what the Bible says.

At one time, I shared your attitude about PA, bullhorn street preachers. Then I was confronted about them and just how countercultural God's ways are. I met some of them. I ended up financially supporting some of them, mainly because I ministered to a lot of "not your ordinary church-going, wife-has-a-mercedes and joint head of household" folks. We went into relationship with a lot of folks that many churches don't seek out as a target. Mainly because lots of churches are "come and see", as opposed to "go and do". And lots of churches want a certain target because they can preach tithing and 10% of nothing is a divide by zero error.

I've met a lot of people with amazing testimonies, and those testimonies were so often changed by some version of a street preacher with a bullhorn, ignoring the heckles and mocking--heckles and mocking that were just as often from church-going professing Christians as from Dawkins-type atheists. We can sit in our middle class cushion, rubbing shoulders with other middle class, comfortable, easy-believing church members, twice a week or not at all. But when we get outside of our bubble, chronically with the "least and lost" that Jesus came for, our assumptions can be threatened.

We may be surprised if we take the governor off and ask ourselves, "How many of my assumptions are built by the culture I was formed in, and how radically would God change my mind if I gave His Word permission to rock all of it?"

 

[Orange_Crush]

Another story... One of the lay leaders in our church was a former stripper and a drug dealer who gave her life to God because of a street preacher--well, a parking lot preacher outside her strip club at about 3 AM. No one needed to convince her that if God existed, she was on the wrong side of Him. That made her heart softened and humbled to the guy that yelled out that while we were yet sinners, Jesus died for us. Or quote Paul that, maybe someone would die for a good man, but Jesus died for him--the chiefest of sinners!

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

No, not a street preacher...just a responder to outrageous statements, who happens to know what the Bible says. The reason you feel I'm "aiming for an argument", is only because I'm not agreeing with you. I have a feeling you're the type of person who, if not agreed with on all things, then challenged, you believe the person challenging you is "aiming for an argument", because there's no way you could possibly be wrong.

You couldn't be further off-base. You don't know me and I don't know you. We're discussing a serious subject over a medium that's not always the best for doing such a thing. It's easy to inject meaning behind what someone says that isn't actually the intention of what was said and then the conversation goes off in a direction that's hard to recover from. I don't doubt that I've made some mistakes in some of my responses and might not have helped what I'm trying to say come across clearly. I don't think I've made any outrageous statements, but you might be seeing my original comments in a way I didn't intend...which is why I don't understand the responses I've received from you. Ultimately, it's just a message board and not worth the fuss, IMO.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Also see my story above.

We all have those parts of ourselves and thinking that are formed by the humanistic world around us. We can go on assuming that we are right, or we can question everything and filter it through what the Bible says.

At one time, I shared your attitude about PA, bullhorn street preachers. Then I was confronted about them and just how countercultural God's ways are. I met some of them. I ended up financially supporting some of them, mainly because I ministered to a lot of "not your ordinary church-going, wife-has-a-mercedes and joint head of household" folks. We went into relationship with a lot of folks that many churches don't seek out as a target. Mainly because lots of churches are "come and see", as opposed to "go and do". And lots of churches want a certain target because they can preach tithing and 10% of nothing is a divide by zero error.

I've met a lot of people with amazing testimonies, and those testimonies were so often changed by some version of a street preacher with a bullhorn, ignoring the heckles and mocking--heckles and mocking that were just as often from church-going professing Christians as from Dawkins-type atheists. We can sit in our middle class cushion, rubbing shoulders with other middle class, comfortable, easy-believing church members, twice a week or not at all. But when we get outside of our bubble, chronically with the "least and lost" that Jesus came for, our assumptions can be threatened.

We may be surprised if we take the governor off and ask ourselves, "How many of my assumptions are built by the culture I was formed in, and how radically would God change my mind if I gave His Word permission to rock all of it?"

I don't intend to keep the conversation going, but I did want to make it clear that I think your intentions are good and I can appreciate that...if that means anything. We're all Vols and I was never looking to offend anyone and think my original comment was pretty mundane and certainly haven't tried to persuade anyone more so than just try to add more context (maybe in a messy incomplete way). I've never advocated for street preaching to stop or said anyone was wrong for doing it or that it has never worked. I don't think me not being a big fan of certain methods of street preaching should bother anyone else so much. That's it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't intend to keep the conversation going, but I did want to make it clear that I think your intentions are good and I can appreciate that...if that means anything.

It does. Thank you.

 

[SugarCC]

You couldn't be further off-base. You don't know me and I don't know you. We're discussing a serious subject over a medium that's not always the best for doing such a thing. It's easy to inject meaning behind what someone says that isn't actually the intention of what was said and then the conversation goes off in a direction that's hard to recover from. I don't doubt that I've made some mistakes in some of my responses and might not have helped what I'm trying to say come across clearly. I don't think I've made any outrageous statements, but you might be seeing my original comments in a way I didn't intend...which is why I don't understand the responses I've received from you. Ultimately, it's just a message board and not worth the fuss, IMO.

I am in total agreement that this medium is not always the best way of conveying messages and ideas, that the nuances and passion of face-to-face conversation are completely lost...it's the reason I, nine and a half times out of ten, stay out of these types of conversations, along with politics. As I said, I stepped off into this one with just a tongue in cheek comment, that really wasn't meant to...anything, one way or another.

I'll end it with this, brother...please pray for me, as I will you, for I am always in need of prayer.

"...and have not charity, I am nothing."

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

Not sure condescension is the appropriate word there. I don’t see myself as superior to more strictly religiously inclined peoples. I know many very religious people that I respect entirely. I just don’t agree with the evangelism, specifically I don’t appreciate the public proliferation of ideals that I would say are generally condescending themselves (as in they are good and right and other ways must be wrong and indecent). One can have morality without being religious or being of a certain religion. The message that they aren’t is a dangerous one I do not agree with or support. And it is rampant, though I know many Christians that don’t push their faith on others and I respect the heck out of them for it.

In other words...you ok with it, as long as we shut up about it, despite the fact that the God we believe in commands usto witness.

I think that maybe I am reading you wrong, so I will give you benefit of the doubt.

I personally take every chance I can to talk about the Lord..BUT..I do not talk about him to people once they make it clear they do not and will not believe, and that they don't want to hear about it.

I rarely ever do what I'm doing right now and arguing about it to somebody that thinks my whole life is a dumb joke.

I have been there myself...I was agnostic at best back in my wild life...so I understand that only damage is done by pushing it on someone who doesn't want to hear it.

However..I will not be ashamed of him, I am often ashamed of myself, but I will not be ashamed of him or my belief in him.

Don't wanna argue and push you or anyone else even farther away..so I will leave it at this.