Actually, I need to get back to Church. I used to help setup at the YMCA, I and my wife got Baptised there! I went every Sunday.. Then it moved to the movie theater in the mall, went there a few times.. Then we stopped going. Work got in the way, just drifted away. But here lately I feel a tugging at my soul, I've been watching a lot of videos of church, Bible verses and what they mean, ect. I want to get a real relationship with God, with His people. We have no friends as we're headed on 9 years clean! Everyone we hung out with still use or even passed away from overdoses.. I miss being around people that want me around. My wife and I both work together, same shift same job. Every single day it's work, then home.. Its depressing and I already have bad depression.. So I need to get back into church, I miss worship, hearing the pastor, ect.

We would love to have you come to church with on Sundays! We would love to meet and welcome you!

Thanks for writing in! The more dialogue the better! In response, I don’t think saying we don’t have a concrete answer on God’s action in that moment is a “centrist” view; it’s just an honest view. None of us do know. And it’s ironic you would say that eliminates nuance. If anything, making the definitive - and in my mind, arrogant - statement that God definitely DID or DIDN’T is what eliminates any thoughtful nuance or dialogue. It’s much more theologically honest and humble to simply discuss the matter and then say like Ezekiel, “Lord, you know.”

@@RussMoore-eo2ly Thank you for your comment, Russ. I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts. Phrase A: “God Saved Trump” Phrase B: “God didn’t save Trump” Phrase C: “We don’t know if God saved Trump.” My main point is that Phrases A and B are not equally extreme, but adding Phrase C makes them appear equal. Phrase C introduces uncertainty, suggesting that the truth is unknowable, which can shut down discussion and discourage nuance between phrases A and B. This can promote religious relativism and apathy towards these distinctions, preventing nuanced analysis and debate. Both phrases assert certainties, but claiming God saved Trump often carries stronger implications of divine favor, which can be more impactful and divisive than simply denying such intervention. I don’t mind Phrase C being used if it acknowledges human understanding limits, avoids suggesting all viewpoints are equally valid, encourages further study, and fosters critical dialogue on different perspectives. --------------------------------------------------------------- Example: Harold Camping 2011 Phrase A: “The Rapture will definitely happen on May 21, 2011.” Phrase B: “The Rapture will not happen on May 21, 2011.” Phrase C: “We don’t know if the Rapture will happen on May 21, 2011.” Emphasizing uncertainty (Phrase C) doesn’t encourage theological questioning, evaluating past failed predictions, understanding deceptive tactics, or fostering critical thinking, leaving more people susceptible to manipulation. My biggest problem is that pacifying language (not implying that’s what you intend) discourages critical analysis, making it harder to stay grounded in reality and function well together. I've seen many Christians, including family, become mentally unhealthy by believing things that reject reality. I want us to help give people the tools to evaluate information better.

Thanks for the reply and the thoughtful response. Your clarification helps and makes sense. That said, I disagree with your conclusions, including the idea that one of those certainties is stronger or more dangerous than the other. I consider them both extreme things to claim to be certain about and taking the time to discuss them both fairly is to me the essence of nuance. I understand in your mind it is creating a false equivalency. I just disagree. But hey that’s what these conversations are for! And I appreciate you taking the time to voice your disagreement. The rapture comparison argument is a stretch :)

@@RussMoore-eo2ly If you're willing, I'd like to explore your disagreement further. I aim for a productive conversation but find some of your language dismissive, like the Rapture example, and your responses often seem broad or general. I genuinely want to dive deeper into these ideas. Could you please clarify: 1. How are Phrases A and B equally bad and dangerous? 2. What makes the Rapture example a stretch? (It was meant to show how Phrase C (uncertainty) can lead to unhelpful thinking). My central argument is: Phrases A and B are not equally extreme/dangerous, but Phrase C introduces uncertainty that makes them appear equal, hindering nuanced discussion and critical analysis. Making divine intervention seem entirely unknowable reduces motivation for detailed, thoughtful discussions about faith, morality, and actions.

Again, we all have a starting place from which we’re approaching and how we interpret political commentary. But I think once you get away from the extremes, the great majority of America would love to wash our hands with what we’ve been given and have strong, young new leadership rise up. That’s just observable, not centrist. Of course with the freshness of her campaign, polls show excitement. Should be an interesting fall!