RFC: Statement of Faith

By E. I. Sanchez on Jun 29, 2008 | 4272 views | 34 feedbacks »

No to the Emergent Village
No to pro-Choice
No to "It's my body"
No to mercy killings
No to non male-female marriages
No to new denominations
No to Mormonism
No to Jehova Witnessesism
No to all things New Age
No to the Unoffensive Gospel of Jesus
No to the Prosperity Gospel
No to Buddhism
No to Hinduism
No to Dispensationalism
No to Mecca
No to free willism
No to Intelligent Design
No to evolution (micro, macro or metro)
No to Pacifism
No to Green Peace
No to P.E.T.A
No to monasteries
No to bank accounts with more than 30 days worth of rainy-day money
No to forced conversions
No to Humanism
No to Nirvana
No to utopias
No to Annihilation of the soul
No to changing from "Christian" to "follower of Jesus"
No to "Personal Relationships" with Jesus
No to "God Spoke to Me"
No to Mini-Skirts
No to "The Winners Write History"
no to tithing
no to the Democratic party
no to "conversations" with God (like #31)
no to not judging
no to blind faith
no to "many paths to God"
no to Oprah
no to faith healers

34 comments

Comment from: Neil [Visitor] · http://4simpsons.wordpress.com

Great list. My only quibble might be with "No to changing from "Christian" to "follower of Jesus""

So many people use "Christian" as a synonym for "nice" that I can see why some might like to be more precise with their description.

I'm still using "Christian," BTW.

06/29/08 @ 18:53

Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]

Thanks Neil.

I've heard Greg Koulk use the term and I didn't like it. Our About us page says "followers of Jesus" but We are also Christian. I know some use the term meaninglessly but that's their problem. Why should we change our name.

I've actually also thought about creating a new description, or perhaps suing people for misusing the name of Christ like that.

That said, I'm sure that whatever name or description we come up with -- that we're going to find a way to embarrass the Name of Jesus again...

So let's keep Christian and provide an apologetic when needed.

06/29/08 @ 21:53

Comment from: Johnny O [Visitor]

Edgar,

Are you supposed to pick and chose which ones you like?

Because if not, I'm unsure how 17 and 18 can both be on there

06/30/08 @ 06:20

Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]

Hi Johnny O,
For Christians, the Bible is clear. God created the heavens and the earth. All that is seen and unseen. We cannot be apologetic about this. This is what we believe.

If some want to use catchy gimmicks and call it "Intelligent Design" to get more attention - well, good for them.

On Micro and Macro, let's pick this up at the I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist post...

06/30/08 @ 07:40

Comment from: Johnny O [Visitor]

Edgar,

Thanks for clearing that up. I happen to agree, ID is just Creationism dressed up for the courtroom.

I've already posted on the "I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist post"

06/30/08 @ 09:18

Comment from: Lance [Visitor]

no mini skirts? Bummer.

07/02/08 @ 14:51

Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]

Hi Lance,

Good to hear from you.

Yes. Mini Skirts are a great little feature of creation. Unfortunately, they're not kosher :-)

07/02/08 @ 17:58

Comment from: Johnny O [Visitor]

I note that true to the bible you don't mention that slavery is wrong...

07/03/08 @ 02:56

Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]

Slavery is covered by #3:

3. - No to "It's my body".

:-)

On a serious note, you make a good point about slavery. We take it for granted. We don't think of slavery as being a problem in our days. Yet, the trade of humans and enslavement is real. very sad.

07/03/08 @ 08:19

Comment from: Johnny O [Visitor]

Oh, I though #3 was relating to abortion.

Could you explain it please? I don't get it.

07/03/08 @ 08:57

Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]

yeah, I was being funny there. #3 is definitely about Pro-Choicers that use that excuse to kill babies.

I'll talk to Dan and see if we need to include something about human trade and enslavement...

I'll write about "slavery" in biblical times in a different post. We can take that debate there...

07/03/08 @ 09:26

Comment from: Johnny O [Visitor] · http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7494517.stm

I was being funny there. #3 is definitely about Pro-Choicers that use that excuse to kill babies

Gotcha, I get it now.

A few other things have popped into my head. I'm not in anyway trying to catch you out for not including them by the way, I'm just curious on your opinion as a Christian.

There's a bit of a hoo-ha going on with the Anglican church here in the UK about female Bishops (see link above).

Also, drinking alchohol and the use of contraception

Different parts of Christianity seem to teach different things.

I'm curious about what the Bible says with regard to each and I was just wondering what the opinions of people on this site were?

I know this isn't what this thread is about, but it was the most relevent.

07/08/08 @ 05:20

Comment from: Neil [Visitor] · http://4simpsons.wordpress.com

Good questions, Johnny O. Here's my $0.02:

Romans 14 and other passages address how we are to handle disputed matters. From this we can immediately infer two things:

1. God knew weâ€™d have disputed matters.
2. He gave guidance on how to handle them.

Some beliefs are essential if one is to call himself a Christian - e.g., Jesus is the only way to salvation (mentioned directly or indirectly in 100 passages), Jesus is God, etc.

Other things have guidance but not absolutes. For example, with respect to alcohol the Bible teaches not to get drunk, to obey laws and not to tempt others with our drinking.

But it doesnâ€™t say never to drink. If people donâ€™t want to drink that is fine, but that shouldnâ€™t be presented as a Biblical requirement or an essential of the faith.

Contrary to many myths, we have a lot of freedom in Christ. Christianity contains many principles and some specific rules, but we can exercise our personal preferences in many ways, such as worship styles.

07/08/08 @ 13:50

Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]

Hi Johnny,

I agree with Neil. Alcohol is not bad as long as you moderate it and can handle it. Unfortunately, I grew up with many people that couldn't moderate their intake and that shaped my views on it. I don't like it. I don't drink. People joke around because I'm one of the few Mexicans they know that doesn't drink! :-)

A while back, Dan mentioned something about contraception. Some drugs (If I remember correctly) apparently do end-up 'killing' a potential baby. Again, I'm not the expert so I'll refer to Dan.

By the way, Dan is actually out for a few weeks so it may be a bit before he replies.

07/08/08 @ 21:37

Comment from: Neil [Visitor] · http://4simpsons.wordpress.com

You are right, Edgar. Some contraceptives are abortifacients, meaning that they kill the conceptus by keeping it from implanting in the womb.

07/09/08 @ 06:48

Comment from: Johnny O [Visitor]

OK, I understand why you are against that. What about condoms?

Obviously I'm thinking about the Roman Catholic Church here, which is against all types of contraception.

Can an arguement be made from scripture against a married couple using condoms?

07/09/08 @ 08:35

Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]

Johnny,

I am currently at work so I don't have time to reply to your last question on couples and condoms - but it is an excellent one...

I may make it a post itself...

07/09/08 @ 08:50

Comment from: Dan [Member]

i have a few more ideas:

1. no to tithing
2. no to the Democratic party
3. no to "conversations" with God (like #31)
4. no to not judging
5. no to blind faith
6. no to "many paths to God"
7. no to Oprah
8. no to faith healers

07/17/08 @ 08:59

Comment from: Dan [Member]

johnny, i believe a good argument could be made against married couples using any artificial birth control--condoms, vasectomy, etc.

07/17/08 @ 09:02

Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]

Dan -

great additions to the list. I personally love the "no to tithing". This is a huge one. Tele-Evangelism is guilty here...

I also want to change from Opra to "No to TeleEvangelism". If you want to preach, get out of your house and start with your neighbor.

I'll combine and print the list and I'll have it ready for us to discuss when you visit in a couple of weeks.

07/18/08 @ 13:22

Comment from: Carlotta [Visitor]

· http://blog.christocentric.com

Edgar, I had just created my own "we believe" manifesto and then read yours the same day. Mine was exactly like you said yours WASN'T.

So, away with the traditional and in with the non-traditional. Mine is a hodgepodge of the old mixed with the new.

But I want to thank you for your originality and I LOVE your statement of faith!

07/20/08 @ 10:41

Comment from: Dan [Member]

nice Carlotta. i like your statement.

07/20/08 @ 18:20

Comment from: Johnny O [Visitor]

no to the Democratic party

God is a Republican then?

lol

07/21/08 @ 05:25

Comment from: Dan [Member]

God is a Republican then?

lol. God is probably as disgusted with the GOP as most of us are.

07/21/08 @ 09:14

Comment from: Trent [Visitor] · http://www.schmuckfactor.blogspot.com

Just a question. Is this list designed to keep the faithful in or to keep the heathen out? If it is to keep the heathen out how about
1. No to parties
2. No to fun
3. No to ESPN, I mean if anyone tempts people to drink that shouldn't it would be all of the beer commercials, right?
4. No to sex
5. No to anything we don't expressly not say no to..

If we are trying to hem in, I mean provide guidelines for the faithful how about,
1. No to letting mothers who are brave enough to have a child when the inseminator checks out have to raise a child without health care?
2. No to letting children sit in foster homes because they are not white or because they have a defect?
3. How about no to thinking it is my money?
4. How about no to whining about how high taxes are because of all of those people who are just getting a handout?

Just asking

08/25/08 @ 19:18

Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]

Trent,

That's an excellent question. The list is really for false positives (unorthodox christians).

Some statements of faith have so much theology that they become meaningless. Our list is simple. We are Christians - and our list tells a few of our core beliefs.

Some thoughts
Since we are called to be the light of the world, Parties are a must. We must be there - to at least - be the designated driver.
ESPN - if you read the fine print, it does say - Drink Responsibly
Sex among married couples and with your own spouse is not a sin.

Overall, Dan and I are trying to shrink the list lest we become Pharisees.

08/25/08 @ 21:16

Comment from: Lance [Visitor]

No tithe? Explain yourself please.

Thanks, and God bless.

09/08/08 @ 13:44

Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]

Hi Lance - yeah - that is a good question.

Dan - want to take this one?

09/08/08 @ 19:27

Comment from: Johnny O [Visitor]

I'd like to take issue with 26 also. I think they were a brilliant band that spoke to a generation of disillusioned people that were fed up with... oh wait... not the band... oops.

What about The Foo Fighters?

09/09/08 @ 02:58

Comment from: Dan [Member]

Hi Lance I totally missed your comment. We don't think tithing is for modern believers. The short answer is that the tithes were the model and mode of support for the Levitical priesthood and temple apparatus. It was the tax of the day. As of AD 70 when the temple went bye-bye, that was done away with. The underlying moral principle of the civil tithing law is giving, and we are now bound by God's moral law, not the civil laws of ancient Israel.

These are good.

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tithe.html

http://www.equip.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=muI1LaMNJrE&b=4136245&content_id=%7B779C2D09-1697-42B1-99D0-65930BFAFF85%7D&notoc=1

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5624

09/27/08 @ 11:12

Comment from: Dan [Member]

We like the Foo Fighters around here, especially Monkey Wrench.

09/27/08 @ 11:13

Comment from: brown [Visitor]

You forgot no to racism and sexism. E. I. Sanchez needs to be able to respond without using work as an excuse or deferring to Dan. This is your website based on your mission; you should be able to defend it--it leads to better discussion.

06/02/09 @ 20:30

Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member]

brown,

Thanks for the feedback. I'll work on that...

re: racism & sexism... good additions... my original goal was to keep the list to 33 items to match Jesus' age when he was crucified but the list keeps on growing...

06/02/09 @ 21:17

Comment from: Rev. Bruce Peltonen [Visitor] · http://medic411.net/wordpress

I live by the Grace of Yahweh (God, for all who don't understand). Lists have a way of becoming legalistic, leading back to bondage under the law. Which will damn a person to hell if they do not repent of there sin (legalisim). No man can pluck us out of Yahweh' hand, but we sure enough can walk away (as in the apostasy)! Do not be deceived. I don't like being a SLAVE either.

05/19/10 @ 18:12

Comment feed for this post