Star Trek Canon and Biblical Theology

Way back in the 1960s, there was this show called Star Trek.  Maybe you have heard of it.

In one of the episodes, Captain Kirk fights with a lizard creature from a species known as the Gorn.  Of course, what those writers didn’t know at the time was that a future Star Trek show, nearly 60 years later, would also want to make use of the Gorn character.

Our present Gorn look and act much different than the Gorn of William Shatner’s day.  60s Gorn looked like a guy in a big rubber lizard suit – because it was a guy in a big rubber lizard suit.  The Gorn of the 2020s look like they were born on the set of James Cameron’s Aliens.  Instead of lumbering behemoths, they are wicked, sleek, and scare the bejeezus out of even the most stone-faced Starfleet officer.

So, how does one explain the difference in the presentation of the Gorn species?

Of course, the most obvious answer is that film and tech have improved vastly in 60 years.  If the writers of Star Trek in the 1960s had access to 21st-century tech, they would not have thrown Bill Blackburn into a rubber lizard suit.

But that explanation does not work for a lot of Star Trek fans.  For these folks, there is a real discrepancy that needs to be accounted for WITHIN THE STORY.  These differing Gorn appear at nearly the same time in Star Trek history, so why do they not look the same?

If you go to Facebook and Reddit, you will see fans developing very intricate explanations that will allow both accounts of the Gorn to remain canon (true within the story).  There are dozens and dozens of theories.  Some vary only slightly, while others have wildly differing explanations.  My favorite so far is this one:

They're not the same species.

Kirk in his recording, says specifically, "... what the Metrons call the Gorn." Not what he, or Starfleet, call the Gorn. But what the Metrons call that species. 

If you apply SNW to the TOS timeline, they know what the Gorn look like and how they behave. I've interpreted Kirk's words as one of puzzlement: "We know what the Gorn are, these aren't them, why the heck are the Metrons calling them that?"

I love that this guy is digging down and dissecting Kirk’s words.  There is no way the original writers meant this… but he is able to use their chance verbiage to design an entire thesis.

Now, most fans are just having fun with this… but there are a few who take this seriously… and angrily.  They have choice words for folks who do not validate their theory and they HATE anyone who shrugs it off as just a story.

Observing this has reminded me of so many theological discussions I have been involved in and witnessed.  Christians are also concerned with canon and how they deal with discrepancies in their story varies on a scale even greater than Star Trek.  How does a God who acts horribly throughout a lot of the story suddenly get credited with peace and love?  How can contradictory ideas and events within the Bible be accounted for?

Some Christians recognize that a lot of the early Bible writers were only a few steps up from cavemen and their God acted like it.  Later, as civilization matured, so did "God".  By the time we get to the later writers, God looks a lot different.  We have moved past the rubber suit.

Other Christians want these discrepancies to work within canon.  They will dig down and dissect the wording.  Books, seminars, and studies exist to keep things canon. They use chance verbiage to develop a thesis. They try to get the story to flow… but they can’t always get it to work.  In the end, there are lots of ways to make the not working… palatable.

And then there are those who take it seriously… and angrily.  They have choice words for folks who do not validate their theories and they HATE anyone who shrugs it off as story.

I get along fine, generally, with those first two groups… but the angry group has little patience with an atheist like me.  Especially when they find out I was once a believer.  It is difficult for many Christians to reconcile a former believer becoming an atheist… while maintaining canon.

Some, like a colleague I once worked with at a ministry, say I am now “possessed by a lying spirit.”  My lack of belief is not really me… it is a demon.  Various canon problems can be solved with this approach.

Others have decided I was never a believer in the first place.  My decades in the faith and ministry simply… didn’t happen.  Their only way to maintain canon is to proclaim that I never really believed.

This approach occurs with Star Trek fans too.  If you get to a really sticky wicket, you just proclaim it “not canon”.  It never happened.

I think I want a shirt that reads, "Not Canon".  :)

Facebook Faith #58: God Brings Trials?

I regularly see my religious friends post on Facebook about the various trials they are going through... and how God has brought these to teach and refine them.

If one has an all-powerful deity, I suppose that is the most charitable way you could frame your deity's involvement in the pains and sufferings of your life.

I used to think that way, but I left the faith life about 8 years ago. Here's the thing - the same amount of fortune and frustration occur in my life now as ever did before. Cutting God loose in my life did not end "blessings" nor remove a "hedge of protection". Life is moving on pretty much as it always had.

But honestly, I do find the hard times easier to bear without an extra set of footprints in the sand. I now know those valleys are just... life. And life happens. There is no deity causing this calamity to instruct me or to punish me. I no longer add stress to the situation by obsessing over the tea leaves, trying to figure out what God is trying to show me or where I went wrong to allow the Devil this foothold in my life.

I also find taking the focus off of unseen spirits has given me a greater appreciation for the people traveling our common path. THEY are the ones who help me through the trials. THEY are the ones who offer me kindness.

Believers often wonder how those who do not believe in gods have hope during the hard times.

Personally, I have found it much easier.

Facebook Faith # 57 - Less of Me...

A friend of mine on Facebook posted, "What Would Actually Make You Happy?" He is a religious man, so many of the responses were of a religious nature.

One of the responses made my heart heavy. A gentleman replied:

"Less of me..."

It was painful to read because I know that is exactly how I would have answered that question throughout most of the time I was a believer. In conservative Evangelical theology, you are seen as bringing nothing to the table, everything is about what God does. The only thing preventing God from doing his best for you and in you is you. With such a view of one's relationship to the divine, self-disparaging comments become the norm.

Growing up, sermons from the pulpit, bible studies, and song lyrics constantly drove home the message that I was, inherently, the problem. These lines were typical of the Christian bands I listened to as a believer:

"I know how I ought to be. Alive to You and dead to me."

" More of Jesus, less of me."

" I am nothing! So I lay down and cry for mercy."

I recently moved my entire music collection over to a USB drive for my car. Even still, most of my music collection is Christian Rock. I tried listening to some old songs as I drove around town. Though I could still enjoy the music, the lyrics tended to be so... depressing, that I just had to turn it off. It was just weird listening to a good tune where the lyrics repeated how awful everyone is.

The above meme was posted by another believing friend of mine. I sigh when I read things like that.

You are not the villain. Happiness will not come from there being less of you.

The answers will not be found in tearing down "you".

What I have discovered since leaving the life of faith a few years back is that happiness and peace develop as I am becoming my best self.

Love God - Love Your Loved Ones Less

Yesterday, my brother shared an article on Facebook concerning Evangelical pastor Francis Chan's challenge for Christians to stop idolizing their family and put Christ's mission first. He asked for his readers' thoughts. After perusing the article, I wrote:

"A: Chan believes anyone who does not "have a relationship" with his god will be tortured for eternity by said god - so out the gate, I am convinced that his view of god is going to be harmful to humanity. Ergo any thought he has to add about how a believer should go about spiritual pursuits, in my view, is going to be highly suspect.

B. Chan is encouraging you to put the most important relationships of your life on the back burner so you can go out and... well, at this point it gets vague... be radical, and all out, and live over the edge! This too will probably end badly. Not for Chan, Chan will get awesome book deals and speaking engagements out of this. He will get lots of perks.

The followers of Chan? Not so much. They will probably mess up relationships, wax and wane between guilt and euphoria until something gives, and make a lot of financial and life decisions with no more consideration than a role of the dice.

My challenge to Christians... stop idolizing... period."

Then this morning, I read an article by Libby Anne over at Love, Joy, Feminism, where she shared about growing up with that evangelical mindset of near paranoia about making sure everything and everyone in your life was undervalued when compared to God.

"I also remember worrying that I loved my family more than I loved God. I was taught that this was wrong—that it made my family idols. I felt so conflicted over this, and purposed time and again to love God more than I loved my parents or siblings."

Reading both of those articles made me reflect on how real that topic was to me growing up. I regularly saw folks give up various past times and pleasures because they were concerned these things were becoming an "idol" in their life. I many times abandoned enjoyments, passed on opportunities, or sabotaged relationships because I thought these things would "hinder my walk with God". Jesus needed to be ultimate (whatever that meant) and nothing could even be a close second.

One of the musical heroes in my circles growing up was named Keith Green. I lived and worked at Green's ministry for 6 months when I was 18.  He wrote a song where he pointed out that everything in his life took 2nd place to Jesus. Keith speaks of his marriage in this way:

"As I told her when we wed, I'd surely rather be found dead, than to love her more than the one who saved my soul."

There was a time when I heard that song and that line and felt it was a powerful testimony of dedication to Jesus - now I see it as a dysfunctional mess.

Imagine a husband insisting to his wife that she love him more than the children. Contemplate what kind of mother would tell a daughter that, if the daughter loved her brother more, then the daughter was unworthy of her mother's love.

Does any reasonable person consider this jealous, competitive perspective in any way loving?

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!

Facebook Faith #56 - St. Paul Set The Bar of Love Well

A friend on Facebook posted this page earlier today.  In general, I like it.  I think it is useful, not only for reflecting on potential life long partners, but it can be applied to ourselves as well.  I think that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 13, does a first rate job of describing love.

The interesting thing is that this practice - inserting the name of a potential life partner into the text - was a maneuver that significantly destabilized my faith.  Like the author of the shared page, I tried inserting my God in place of the word Love in 1 Corinthians 13:

• God is patient
• God is kind
• God does not envy
• God does not boast
• God is not proud
• God is not rude
• God is not self-seeking
• God is not easily angered
• God keeps no record of wrongs
• God does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth
• God always protects
• God always trusts
• God always hopes
• God always perseveres
• God never fails

As I looked at that list, I realized that 1 Corinthians 13 did not describe the God of my evangelical heritage.  The God I found in the Bible was like this list sometimes, but certainly not all of the time. In fact, the more I investigated the Bible, the more I found that the god of those pages failed this test miserably.

For a while, I clung to a God that met the love standard.  So what if the god of my sacred text didn't measure up.  I could ignore the text, ignore the proclamations of other believers, ignore my own doubts.  I was like Hawkeye in MASH, desperately pounding on the chest of a dead man, clinging to the hope that my desperation could revive this patient.  I pounded on that chest for a few years.

In the end, I realized that 1 Corinthians 13 is a good list.  Paul had a moment of enlightenment and tapped into something exceptional.

Love is all of those things and is a worthy pursuit for its own sake.

Facebook Faith # 54: Theological Ideas, Like Comic Books, Have Parallel Universes

I have seen this meme come up a number of times from my Christian friends on Facebook. I struggle with whether to engage this discussion, because I usually get the Facebook equivalent of the deer in the headlights - they don't know how to address my contention, because they are not even sure what I am asking.

In the case of this meme, it seems contradictory to proclaim that using fear as a strategy is unique to the Devil. How is God threatening someone with ETERNAL torture not a fear strategy?

Yet that is what many believers will claim. They will quickly shift gears into "God loves you so much, he provided a way to avoid Hell!" Not realizing, or refusing to realize, that their Savior is also the head torturer... and which role he plays depends on whether you are on his good side, or his bad side.

Believers tend to not worry about continuity. Like comic book writers, all contradictions can be explained by making use of parallel universes. In one universe, Robin dies. In a parallel universe, Robin lives on at Batman's side. Depending on what you want your story to say at a given moment, you pull from the theological universe of your choosing.

The last church I belonged to was BIG about referencing the LOVE of God on Sunday morning. They also believe that anyone who doesn't love their God back is going to Hell... but that part is somewhat minimized.

However, it is spelled out in their belief statements. One day on FB, I pointed that out to one of my former pastors, after he did a status update proclaiming the unconditional love of God. I began by quoting their church website:

The conversation went on politely for a few more paragraphs. In the end though, he seemed to maintain his beginning assumptions.... God loves you unconditionally AND God will send you to Hell for not loving him back.

Each idea in its own, parallel, universe.

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.

Review: Hellbound? - A Documentary About Hell

I finally got around to watching Hellbound. Hellbound is a documentary, that looks at how the doctrine of Hell is viewed in Christianity.  In it, various clergy and theologians are interviewed for their take on God and Hell. As an ex-evangelical, I enjoyed it.

There is a good sampling of people and I think all of the views were honestly represented without much spin.  There were folks who were pro-Hell and others who leaned to a more universalistic end. Though it is obvious the director wants to point you to a universalistic end, he is fair to the other opinions.

Much of the theology is represented by various folks within evangelical circles. Greg Boyd and Mark Driscoll are interviewed, rather than Catholic priests and Lutherans.

As an atheist, what was clear to me was that each person's "god" was a reflection of their own personalities. It was no wonder that to the folks of Westboro Baptist, "God" pretty much hated everybody. On the other end, the universalists who wanted to love everyone, had a god who would save everyone.

Look in the mirror, and God looks just like you.

Facebook Faith #48: Politically Correct Bibles?

 

I used to be a conservative Christian.  Then I was a liberal Christian.  For a brief time, I held on to a vague theism.   Finally, a few years ago, I abandoned belief in any deities or supernatural entities altogether.

Yesterday, I read a post on my brother’s Facebook page.  He leans toward the liberal end of Christianity and had shared an article about what things Jesus might have said if he gave a speech at Liberty University.  The ideas presented tended to run 180 degrees from what Ted Cruz had offered during his time there this week.

One of my brother's fundamentalist friends commented that the article was naïve, and he went on to share his frustration with liberal Christians who choose to make the Bible politically correct.  He does not want a “warm, fuzzy” God or Bible!

Inserting tongue into cheek, I replied:

You tell em' ****! Don't let these liberals water down God's word! When God told people to stone a bride at her father's door, he wasn't kiddin around! What happened to the good ol days when God would send his soldiers in and have them wipe out every man, woman, and child - cept the young girls... hell, no... God let them keep the young girls... God's a good ol' boy, and he knows his soldiers have needs! I'm tellin ya! You haven't seen nuttin til you see God get ticked and the only way to calm him down is to put some innocents up on a pike! Woo-Hoo doggie! Damn! There is NOTHING like divine blood-lust! You keep preachin the hard WORD ****! Don't let these liberal believers mess with your ass-kicking Yaweh!

Though I was being a bit sardonic, the actions I listed are accurate according to the Bible.  God ordered massacres and executions, sanctioned rape, and required the blood of innocents to appease his anger.  

Christians work around the violence of God in the Bible in any number of ways.  Some ignore it, then fail to teach it to new converts, thus creating a myriad of believers who truly just don’t know.  Some take a non-literal view of the bible – it was written by a tribal people who ascribed their violence to their God.  Some, like my brother’s Facebook friend… seem a little too enthusiastic about all of that violence.

In my view, either the Bible is no more true than any other ancient myth, or the deity described there is a being worthy of nothing more than disdain, and only cultural inertia keeps people under his spell.

Yes, Jesus taught about love most of the time… but Thich Nhat Hanh talks about it all the time… and HIS book is so much better.  It seems to me that those desiring personal betterment have much better text choices available.

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