Bishop Spong and Me

[gingerbreadman]

I'm new to TWeb. I hope this is the appropriate forum for this discussion.

I've been wrestling with my own personal theology and self-identity. After finally rejecting fundamentalism several years ago I joined a very liberal UCC congregation. Now after a lot of study, reading, and thoughtful consideration I find myself at another turning point. I've examined and rejected so many orthodox Christian doctrines including the virgin birth, the miracles attributed to Jesus, his substitutionary atonement, physical resurrection, and imminent return, and the trinity. I've also abandoned the personal (anthropomorphic) concept of God. And I hear the same challenge from orthodox Christians and atheists: Why continue to call myself a Christian?

Good question. My best answer is that trying to live by the teachings and example of Jesus has had a positive transformational influence on my life, and that my congregation provides me with a sense of belonging to a community of like-minded people who are committed to ideals like peace, compassion, and social justice. But is that enough? Am I maintaining my church membership only to retain the right to identify myself as Christian?

Now I see in the church newsletter that Bishop Shelby Spong has been scheduled to speak here in May. I'm sure most TWebbers know Spong, but if not, he's a retired Episcopal bishop who is as skeptical of orthodox Christian doctrine as I am. He describes himself as a nontheist. But he still professes to love the church he served for his entire professional life. He'll look you in the eye and say "Jesus is my Lord." So here's a guy who has dealt with the same issues I have and has decided he's still a Christian.

It's easy to understand Bishop Spong's refusal to abandon the church and the Christian label when you consider that to do so he would almost have to look at his whole career as a waste of time! But what about me? I'm no priest. I wasn't even a regular church-goer until about five years ago. And I was THIS CLOSE to deciding that I am a member of what Spong calls the Christian Alumni Assocation. Now I've put the whole shebang back into the UNRESOLVED file.

So --- what are your thoughts on Bishop Spong and me? Do we deserve the right to think of ourselves as Christians? Why should we bother?

gb

[James Peter]

I still think the whole idea of a nontheistic christian is a load of rubbish. I mean, I know what its like to be perched between unorthodox christianity and agnosticism but I wouldn't want to say what Spong holds to is a form of Christianity. I don't know what I'd describe it as. Spongism?

[Soundsurfr]

Have you tried UU?

[Ryokan]

I'm new to TWeb. I hope this is the appropriate forum for this discussion. Hi. Welcome to Tweb. This is one of several forums that woulda worked.


I've been wrestling with my own personal theology and self-identity. After finally rejecting fundamentalism several years ago I joined a very liberal UCC congregation. Now after a lot of study, reading, and thoughtful consideration I find myself at another turning point. I've examined and rejected so many orthodox Christian doctrines including the virgin birth, the miracles attributed to Jesus, his substitutionary atonement, physical resurrection, and imminent return, and the trinity. I've also abandoned the personal (anthropomorphic) concept of God. And I hear the same challenge from orthodox Christians and atheists: Why continue to call myself a Christian? It does seem to me, minus at least a few doctrines and miracles, and a God that exists outside of some panthiestic view of reality,what you believe is some sort of Christian flavored humanism, rather than Christianity the religion.


Good question. My best answer is that trying to live by the teachings and example of Jesus has had a positive transformational influence on my life, and that my congregation provides me with a sense of belonging to a community of like-minded people who are committed to ideals like peace, compassion, and social justice. But is that enough? Am I maintaining my church membership only to retain the right to identify myself as Christian? It sounds like you are maintaining your identity as a Christian to maintain your church membership, if you ask me. Which is cool with me if its cool with them. But I am just telling you what I think.


Now I see in the church newsletter that Bishop Shelby Spong has been scheduled to speak here in May. I'm sure most TWebbers know Spong, but if not, he's a retired Episcopal bishop who is as skeptical of orthodox Christian doctrine as I am. He describes himself as a nontheist. But he still professes to love the church he served for his entire professional life. He'll look you in the eye and say "Jesus is my Lord." So here's a guy who has dealt with the same issues I have and has decided he's still a Christian. Or he has decidedChristianity is a useful vehicle for his philosophy. I am not a Spong fan, though, so m


It's easy to understand Bishop Spong's refusal to abandon the church and the Christian label when you consider that to do so he would almost have to look at his whole career as a waste of time! That is exactly his problem.
But what about me? I'm no priest. I wasn't even a regular church-goer until about five years ago. And I was THIS CLOSE to deciding that I am a member of what Spong calls the Christian Alumni Assocation. Now I've put the whole shebang back into the UNRESOLVED file.

So --- what are your thoughts on Bishop Spong and me? Do we deserve the right to think of ourselves as Christians? Why should we bother?

gbWell, assuming you live in a free country, sure you have the right. I don't think what you believe really matches up with what Jesus was talking about or what most people commonly think of when they think Christianity, but its your label. Wear what you want.

[Storico]

I know or know of many people who deeply admire Jesus and the principles of his philosophy that are humanistic, or who admire his character, or the way he treated others. Charles Templeton, after he became an atheist, comes to mind. Templeton went as far as to say that he loved Christ, even though he didn't see Jesus as divine.

The idea of following a particular philosophy or way of life isn't very strange. People affiliate themselves with groups and parties all the time without claiming those groups and parties are divine, or that they have the power to save eternally. The thing about Jesus, though, is that he's different. He said that he was able to save people, that his death and resurrection would save people. If you ignore the claims Jesus made about being divine, and focus entirely on his human side (which was a wonderful one)... it seems to me that you've still got to ask this:

Why did Jesus do what he did?

Was he just a nice guy and he wanted to be kind?
Did he go around welcoming people and feeding them and talking with them because he was friendly?

Or did he do it because he saw a supernatural, a theistic, component to it?

As beautiful as the character of Jesus is, I'm not entirely sure we CAN separate the nice, kind, loving character from the character of the Son of God. They're both being claimed by him.

That being said...

There's great value in joining a congregation for the friendship, the family, and the overall purpose of that congregation. It doesn't necessarily HAVE to be a theistic one at all for it to be wonderful. :smile:

A big huge welcome to TWeb, gdbailey!

[gingerbreadman]

Soundsurfr: Have you tried UU?

Yep. Locally, I found the UCC congregation more receptive to a unitarian christian than the UU congregation was.

Ryokan: It sounds like you are maintaining your identity as a Christian to maintain your church membership, if you ask me.

Interesting thought. Could be! I'm going to have to think about that.

Storico: As beautiful as the character of Jesus is, I'm not entirely sure we CAN separate the nice, kind, loving character from the character of the Son of God. They're both being claimed by him.

---Unless his followers, including the gospel writers, made claims about him that he didn't make himself by putting words in his mouth. That seems to be what Spong, Borg, and others think.

[James Peter]

Unless his followers, including the gospel writers, made claims about him that he didn't make himself by putting words in his mouth. That seems to be what Spong, Borg, and others think.

And not just those but pretty much every academic biblical scholar. There is no real consensus over exactly which bits are 'historical' but the idea that certain sayings are 'less reliable' than others is very well grounded in the evidence, sadly.

[NormATive]

I've been wrestling with my own personal theology and self-identity. After finally rejecting fundamentalism several years ago I joined a very liberal UCC congregation. Now after a lot of study, reading, and thoughtful consideration I find myself at another turning point. I've examined and rejected so many orthodox Christian doctrines including the virgin birth, the miracles attributed to Jesus, his substitutionary atonement, physical resurrection, and imminent return, and the trinity. I've also abandoned the personal (anthropomorphic) concept of God. And I hear the same challenge from orthodox Christians and atheists: Why continue to call myself a Christian?

Ah, there's the rub!

I'm in the same sinking ship you are in, my friend. You've received a much warmer welcome than I here at T-Web. Possibly because you are in Unorthodox Theology. Post what you did in Theology 201 or Christianity 201 and you would meet a much nastier greeting.

I also have purged all elements of superstition from my Christian faith. I only refer to Christianity for moral guidance. However, I am fortunate enough to be of partial Jewish ancestry. This allows me access to the local Synagogue where questioning of one's faith is a given rather than an oddity as it is in the Christian community.

BTW, Triumphalist Christians don't own the patent on Christianity. There are plenty of folks who have come to the same conclusions as you and I. I also remain in my Church community for precisely what attracts me to the faith - a sense of community. Our local church is an excellent platform for all of the social reform ideals with which I was raised (my Grandmother was an extremely Liberal - with a capital "L" - Fundamentalist Christian whose sole purpose in life was to apply the Balm of Gilead to a sin-sick world).

As to Bishop Spong - I greatly admire him and have had the pleasure of hearing him speak. You are in for a treat if only for the comraderie of a like-minded soul.

If you aren't familiar with it already, here is Bishop Spong's 12 Point Thesis:



Martin Luther ignited the Reformation of the 16th century by nailing to the door of the church in Wittenberg in 1517 the 95 Theses that he wished to debate. I will publish this challenge to Christianity in The Voice. I will post my theses on the Internet and send copies with invitations to debate them to the recognized Christian leaders of the world. My theses are far smaller in number than were those of Martin Luther, but they are far more threatening theologically. The issues to which I now call the Christians of the world to debate are these:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

So I set these theses today before the Christian world and I stand ready to debate each of them as we prepare to enter the third millennium.


Why should we bother?

gb

Because it's the right thing to do!

Shalom, Brother.

NORM

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I would say this to Norm and Bailey both. Bailey spoke about all the things removed from the faith and Norm answered with superstition. I'm going to guess these beliefs are seen as superstitions because they're miraculous.

Could you please tell why miracles can't occur then?

[James Peter]

My biggest problem with Spong is that all he says hinges on point #1 and I really don't think it is necessarily true.

[NormATive]

I don't know why miracles don't happen. My guess is that they violate laws of physics and reality.

When I encounter miracles in books I read, I presume one of three things: 1. It's an ancient manuscript, and miracles are what ancient peoples invented to help explain and understand things for which they couldn't. 2. The miracles are pedagogical techniques for empasizing moral or philosophical points as in the Talmud, for example. 3. There are certain folks who believe in miracles despite lack of any solid evidence whatsoever for their existence. Their prose makes good reading, nonetheless.

I just don't think removing all of the miracles and supernatural hocus-pocus from the Gospel makes it any less powerfull a force for good in the world.

NORM

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I don't know why miracles don't happen. My guess is that they violate laws of physics and reality.

When I encounter miracles in books I read, I presume one of three things: 1. It's an ancient manuscript, and miracles are what ancient peoples invented to help explain and understand things for which they couldn't. 2. The miracles are pedagogical techniques for empasizing moral or philosophical points as in the Talmud, for example. 3. There are certain folks who believe in miracles despite lack of any solid evidence whatsoever for their existence. Their prose makes good reading, nonetheless.

I just don't think removing all of the miracles and supernatural hocus-pocus from the Gospel makes it any less powerfull a force for good in the world.

NORM

But I didn't ask why miracles "don't" happen, which I think some would disagree with. Your belief thrust on the ancients demands that they CAN'T happen. Could you please say why not?

[NormATive]

You would be in the minority in your opinion.

BTW, No. 1 isn't the sum total of Bishop Spong's philosophy. You should really read Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes, what I consider his best work. Even if you disagree with Bishop Spong's perspective, you would appreciate the fresh perspective on the Gospel message.

It couldn't hurt ; )

As half Jewish, it resonated with me.

[NormATive]

I said: I DON'T KNOW.

What are you digging for?

NORM

[ApologiaPhoenix]

You would be in the minority in your opinion.

BTW, No. 1 isn't the sum total of Bishop Spong's philosophy. You should really read Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes, what I consider his best work. Even if you disagree with Bishop Spong's perspective, you would appreciate the fresh perspective on the Gospel message.

It couldn't hurt ; )

As half Jewish, it resonated with me.

Actually, I'm in the majority. I extend the vote to the dead as well who tended to believe matter is not all there is.

Even if I am in the minority, that doesn't answer my question. Why CAN'T miracles happen?

[Hail Mary]

Hi GB, you sound like a true searcher (as they say in the Baha'i Faith), and I believe God rewards those who seek him earnestly. Don't give up the search, keep looking, keep looking deeper and deeper, but don't ever give up and I hope and pray God will guide you to him.

I was really interested in your OP because I've read several of Spong's books, although after two or three they seem to repeat the same stuff over and over. I did eventually reject Spong's conclusions, but they opened up a new world of possibilities for me, so in some ways I'm grateful for Spong's point of view. For something else, rooted in historical Christianity, you might try reading "Introduction to Christianity" which is a deeply philosophical look at faith and Christianity, it is by Pope Benedict XVI but the book is great for any Christian.

Eventually, I came to find that God can only be found through faith and the supernatural, this is probably not something I could have possibly understood until God hit me in the face with the self-evident truth of it in my own life, and I think that is the probably the way all earnest searches conclude successfully. So - buckle your seatbelt Dorothy cause Kansas is goin' bye bye.

[NormATive]

Actually, I'm in the majority. I extend the vote to the dead as well who tended to believe matter is not all there is.

Uh, I was addressing James Peter, not you. In this new format, you have to click on the "responding to this post" button on the upper left corner.




Even if I am in the minority, that doesn't answer my question. Why CAN'T miracles happen?

Yes it does. Can't and Don't mean the same thing in the context of this discussion. What I mean is that I don't believe in miracles. I just haven't seen any real proof of their existence. And, I've been looking for a long, long, long, long time. So, in my worldview - MY WORLDVIEW (this is a key point), miracles are ANTI-NORMATIVE.

I believe that a creator (or creators) set into motion inviolate laws of physics and orderliness. The bulk of scientific study has thus far upheld my understanding. My own personal experience (i.e., having NOT experienced any miracles and discovering what I thought or were told to be miracles were either fraud or delusional in nature) also confirms this belief.

In an effort to reconcile the faith of my youth with this newly discovered (albeit, close to three years now) "truth," I have come to the same conclusions as GD Bailey and Bishop Spong.

I make no claim that my beliefs are inerrant truth. I could be completely wrong. Please show me one VERIFIABLE miracle to prove me wrong.

NORM

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Yes it does. Can't and Don't mean the same thing in the context of this discussion. What I mean is that I don't believe in miracles. I just haven't seen any real proof of their existence. And, I've been looking for a long, long, long, long time. So, in my worldview - MY WORLDVIEW (this is a key point), miracles are ANTI-NORMATIVE.

But why are you speaking about real proof of their existence? That is assuming the naturalistic worldview right off that they can't happen. Why should I start with that premise?


I believe that a creator (or creators) set into motion inviolate laws of physics and orderliness. The bulk of scientific study has thus far upheld my understanding. My own personal experience (i.e., having NOT experienced any miracles and discovering what I thought or were told to be miracles were either fraud or delusional in nature) also confirms this belief.

Good. People who believed in miracles also believed in laws of physics and orderliness. You beg the question though by saying they cannot be "violated."


In an effort to reconcile the faith of my youth with this newly discovered (albeit, close to three years now) "truth," I have come to the same conclusions as GD Bailey and Bishop Spong.

I make no claim that my beliefs are inerrant truth. I could be completely wrong. Please show me one VERIFIABLE miracle to prove me wrong.

NORM

I don't have to show a miracle. You are making the claim that they can't happen. It is up to you to support that and to do so, you will have to have all knowledge of past and present and even future events. If even one miracle in any time has happened, your claim is false.

[NormATive]

But why are you speaking about real proof of their existence? That is assuming the naturalistic worldview right off that they can't happen. Why should I start with that premise?

I didn't say that you did.

Look, you have your OPINION and I have mine. You are trying to bait me into a discussion that has no resolution.



People who believed in miracles also believed in laws of physics and orderliness. You beg the question though by saying they cannot be "violated."

I know what you are trying to do. You want me to make an absolute statement that miracles can't happen. That isn't what I said at all and you know it. This is a tactic used by those who need to feel that they are right and everyone else is wrong. You have a desire to DISPROVE my point of view.

I didn't come to my present view flippantly, nor without much struggle and sleepless nights. It's not easy losing one's faith. Try to be less cavalier about being right. This practice of T-Webbers to bully those of us with divergent views into pointless debate is distracting. I don't think any less of you because you believe in miracles. My Grandmother, whom I loved dearly, was a strong believer in all things supernatural.

My involvement in this thread is to provide support for another person like myself, so I could care less what you think of me or my perspective.




I don't have to show a miracle. You are making the claim that they can't happen. It is up to you to support that and to do so, you will have to have all knowledge of past and present and even future events. If even one miracle in any time has happened, your claim is false.

I'll say this one more time, but I swear this is the last. I am not "making the claim that they [miracles] can't happen." I am saying that I PERSONALLY DON'T BELIEVE IN THEM.

And, btw, the burden of proof of miracles are on those who claim they exist since one can't prove a negative. I'll give you $1,000,000.00 if you can PROVE just ONE SUPERNATURAL MIRACLE.

This is why I will never say that miracles CAN'T happen. It is within the realm of possibility. But, since I've lived a very, very long time and have yet to see one, - in this country or any other I've visited - even though I've specifically sought out miracles, I've come to the conclusion (again, MY OWN PERSONAL PERPECTIVE - NOT AN ABSOLUTE) that they probably don't exist. I am so certain in this belief, that I am willing to wager you can't prove me wrong. But, I could be... I'll risk $1,000,000.00 in that belief.

I've reconciled the faith of my youth with this discovery. So has GD Bailey. So has Bishop Spong. And others...

NORM

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I didn't say that you did.

Look, you have your OPINION and I have mine. You are trying to bait me into a discussion that has no resolution.

Yes. Everyone has an opinion. Which opinion is true? To say there is no resolution would be to say that there is no truth to the matter. Do you really want to say that?

And silly me. Wanting to discuss on a discussion board.





I know what you are trying to do. You want me to make an absolute statement that miracles can't happen. That isn't what I said at all and you know it. This is a tactic used by those who need to feel that they are right and everyone else is wrong. You have a desire to DISPROVE my point of view.

No. I don't want you to make that statement. You already have. It's implicit in your disavowal of miracles. The question is, why should I accept that as a true premise? Why shouldn't I read miracles as miracles?

And yes, I do believe that if I am right everyone else is wrong. Why Norm, if you're right on that miracles don't happen, then all who believe in miracles are wrong. But if you don't think you're right in what you believe, what are you doing wasting your time posting it on here?

Finally, I do have a desire to disprove your view. Why? Because I think it's in error and a costly error at that!


I didn't come to my present view flippantly, nor without much struggle and sleepless nights. It's not easy losing one's faith. Try to be less cavalier about being right. This practice of T-Webbers to bully those of us with divergent views into pointless debate is distracting. I don't think any less of you because you believe in miracles. My Grandmother, whom I loved dearly, was a strong believer in all things supernatural.

Why it may not be easy, but that is irrelevant. The relevant question is, "Is your current view true?" Now you can say I'm being cavalier, but what is cavalier about asking questions? You have a premise that claims that all that I hold dear in my faith is wrong. Surely I would be amiss to not question that.

Your belief that this is pointless debate again assumes that there is no truth to discuss. I believe this discussion does have a point. The point is to reach the truth.

And by the way, think less of me all you want. It doesn't matter. I just want my belief to be true and I'd rather be a fool in your eyes and have the truth than a genius and be false.

By the way, since you say your grandmother believed in the supernatural which you seem to equate with miracles I must ask, did Jesus believe in the supernatural?


My involvement in this thread is to provide support for another person like myself, so I could care less what you think of me or my perspective.

And my purpose is truth.






I'll say this one more time, but I swear this is the last. I am not "making the claim that they [miracles] can't happen." I am saying that I PERSONALLY DON'T BELIEVE IN THEM.

But implicitly, you say they can't because every time you read a miracle, you assume something else had to happen.


And, btw, the burden of proof of miracles are on those who claim they exist since one can't prove a negative. I'll give you $1,000,000.00 if you can PROVE just ONE SUPERNATURAL MIRACLE.

No. The burden of proof isn't on me. You're the one going agaisnt the tradition of ages and claiming that all who believed in miracles are wrong. I'd like the scientific discovery that showed us miracles haven't happened or else just admit it's a statement of faith.


This is why I will never say that miracles CAN'T happen. It is within the realm of possibility. But, since I've lived a very, very long time and have yet to see one, - in this country or any other I've visited - even though I've specifically sought out miracles, I've come to the conclusion (again, MY OWN PERSONAL PERPECTIVE - NOT AN ABSOLUTE) that they probably don't exist. I am so certain in this belief, that I am willing to wager you can't prove me wrong. But, I could be... I'll risk $1,000,000.00 in that belief.

Odd. I don't need to see a miracle to believe in them. I merely accept that the people before me were fairly intelligent and could recognize a miracle.


I've reconciled the faith of my youth with this discovery. So has GD Bailey. So has Bishop Spong. And others...

NORM

But you said earlier you lost your faith. How can you say it's the faith of your youth then?

[NormATive]

I have no problem saying that my belief in naturalism is a faith statement. I have plenty of evidence to back it up in my mind.

I can pretty much gaurantee that the sun will appear in the east tomorrow morning. That's a faith statement.

There is a possibilty it won't.

But, not likely.

I can't say the same for miracles. Not because they can't happen, but because I have not seen evidence of any. Ever.

You say that you want a discussion. Well, alright. Tell me; do you believe that eastern mystics can levitate? Can snake charmers really cast a spell on snakes? Does Pat Robertson really talk to G-d? Do you believe that Earnest Angely really can heal people? Do Mormon's underwear protect them from evil? Can David Blaine really perform magic? Did an angel named Moroni really appear to Joseph Smith and show him where to find gold plates inscribed with a New Revelation? Can you cast out demons in the name of Jesus? Have you? If so, when and where? Do you speak in tongues? Are people who believe in speaking in tongues misguided because we live in the New Dispensation? Are they evil? Did Isaiah really predict the birth of Jesus, or was he referring to the birth of Israel as taught in every Schul in the world? Are the Jews wrong to believe that Jesus was a false messiah? If you believe so, why? Why didn't Moses know about Jesus? Howcome Elijah never mentioned that G-d was planning on sending his only son to die on a cross for all mankind? He walked and talked to G-d, didn't he? Why did they leave the most important part out? Are there UFOs flying over military airports? Plenty of upstanding, religious young men and women SWEAR that there are? Do you have enough faith to raise the dead? Can you drink poison and handle poisonous snakes without fear of dying? Why or why not?

Which miracle claims are the real ones? Which are false? Are you the arbiter of what is and isn't a miracle based on your "faith?" Whose to say the Mormons aren't correct? What about the Jehovah's Witnesses? How about the Muslims? They SWEAR that their faith claims are correct and that you are the devil. Who's to say they are wrong? Are you the devil? Do you watch racy movies? Why or why not? Do you believe in Capitalism? Does your faith in religion prohibit you from taking part in investments that make gains at the expense of others, such as your 401k? Did you know that Jesus taught this? Do you really care?

I've pondered each and every one of those questions - and more?

Have you REALLY investigated your beliefs? Does anything come wanting?

I did, and I found all of it wanting. Is this the truth?

Maybe. I believe that it is. And, since I've purged my Christianity from all of those troublesome issues, I can finally focus on what Jesus SAID rather than what miracles to believe in.

This is freedom, indeed!

NORM

[James Peter]

So Norm, out of interest, how can you focus on what Jesus really said when all we have are second generation accounts which (probably) recast what he said in light of theological beliefs that jesus himself did not hold?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I have no problem saying that my belief in naturalism is a faith statement. I have plenty of evidence to back it up in my mind.

Excuse me. Are you saying that all beliefs held to be true must be backed by evidence?


I can pretty much gaurantee that the sun will appear in the east tomorrow morning. That's a faith statement.

There is a possibilty it won't.

But, not likely.

Hume would agree. I wonder though why it's assumed this is only a natuarlist belief.


I can't say the same for miracles. Not because they can't happen, but because I have not seen evidence of any. Ever.

I have never seen a miracle and yet I believe. There is something else different then.


You say that you want a discussion. Well, alright. Tell me; do you believe that eastern mystics can levitate?

Why not?


Can snake charmers really cast a spell on snakes?

Actually, they do it more by the motions that they use rather than their music.


Does Pat Robertson really talk to G-d?

Seeing as this is not normative in the biblical sense, I doubt it, and I suspect you definitely mean something different than prayer.


Do you believe that Earnest Angely really can heal people? Do Mormon's underwear protect them from evil?

Considering I believe in dark spiritual powers as well, I have no problem in believing in "miracles" from the other side as well.


Can David Blaine really perform magic?

Ever looked up anything on his magic?


Did an angel named Moroni really appear to Joseph Smith and show him where to find gold plates inscribed with a New Revelation?

Could he have? Yes. God could have left gold plates. Historically though, when I look at the writings of Smith and what he believed and contrast to it what I already have strong reasons for believing in Christianity, then no. This is not a question of could but did.


Can you cast out demons in the name of Jesus? Have you? If so, when and where?

Every Christian can, but I haven't.


Do you speak in tongues?

Yes. It's called English. God understands it just fine.


Are people who believe in speaking in tongues misguided because we live in the New Dispensation?

Not a dispensationalist, but I do think they're wrong.


Are they evil?

No.


Did Isaiah really predict the birth of Jesus, or was he referring to the birth of Israel as taught in every Schul in the world?

The former


Are the Jews wrong to believe that Jesus was a false messiah? If you believe so, why?

Yes. They're wrong because he was and is the true Messiah.


Why didn't Moses know about Jesus?

Hebrews 11 tells me he did. (Interesting how these are moving away from miracles)


Howcome Elijah never mentioned that G-d was planning on sending his only son to die on a cross for all mankind? He walked and talked to G-d, didn't he? Why did they leave the most important part out?

Why should he have told him?


Are there UFOs flying over military airports? Plenty of upstanding, religious young men and women SWEAR that there are?

They swear wrongly


Do you have enough faith to raise the dead?

Why should I?


Can you drink poison and handle poisonous snakes without fear of dying? Why or why not?

First off, study textual criticism with Mark 16:9-20. SEcondly, study this little thing about not testing God.


Which miracle claims are the real ones? Which are false?

The real ones are the ones shown to be true. The false ones are the ones that aren't.


Are you the arbiter of what is and isn't a miracle based on your "faith?"

It's called Christianity. Not Phoenixanity.


Whose to say the Mormons aren't correct? What about the Jehovah's Witnesses? How about the Muslims? They SWEAR that their faith claims are correct and that you are the devil. Who's to say they are wrong?

I am as a thinking individual who is capable of judging right from wrong.


Are you the devil?

No.


Do you watch racy movies? Why or why not?

If something illicit happens in a movie, I tend to look away. It is for my duty to honor women.


Do you believe in Capitalism?

Of course.


Does your faith in religion prohibit you from taking part in investments that make gains at the expense of others, such as your 401k? Did you know that Jesus taught this? Do you really care?

I'd like to see where. (I'd also like to see why this is the part definitely said by Jesus but those parts that we don't really like such as those claims to deity are made up. Are you the arbiter of what he said or didn't say to use your question?)


I've pondered each and every one of those questions - and more?

Have you now? I was waiting for the hard question.


Have you REALLY investigated your beliefs? Does anything come wanting?

Why yes. A desire to act comes from wanting. And yes, I have investigated my beliefs.


I did, and I found all of it wanting. Is this the truth?

Then I say you took a lacking look seeing as you based your entire system on something that you have no way of showing.


Maybe. I believe that it is. And, since I've purged my Christianity from all of those troublesome issues, I can finally focus on what Jesus SAID rather than what miracles to believe in.

Like he said that he was God and he will judge us on the last day? Oh my. Is that one of those things that he just didn't say?


This is freedom, indeed!

NORM

BUt is it true?

Now my questions and they're simple.

Is God eternal?

Is God material?

Is matter eternal?

[gingerbreadman]

ON MIRACLES

As I stated in the original post, I don't believe in miracles. My response to the question, "Why CAN'T miracles happen," I would have to file that in the same folder with, "Why CAN'T there be extraterrestrials who abduct and probe rednecks and vandalize crops?" and the same question as applied to the existence of dragons and leprechauns, the restorative powers of certain crystals, and so forth. Sure, I suppose miracles CAN happen. I think it's safe to say they don't, but I can't prove it.

It would seem to me that reports of miracles in the bible were intended to lend authority to the story being told. People were definitely superstitious in those days. So instead of simply saying, "These are our laws. They were compiled by Moses," the story-teller adds miracles. "The laws were given to Moses by THE LORD himself on a mountaintop! What, you don't believe that? Too bad. The Hebrews didn't believe it either, so the Lord didn't allow them to enter the promised land of milk and honey."

Notice the parallel with the story of Jesus. Why place his teachings above those of the other sages and rabbis of his era? "Because he was the Son Of God! The miracles prove it! What, you don't believe that? Too bad. No heaven for you."

ON SPONG'S 12 THESES

I agree with 1-6 and 8-11. No. 7 indicates to me that Spong does not deny the centrality of the resurrection to Christianity. So he simply redefines it. It wasn't a physical resurrection. It was a "spiritual" resurrection. As for #12, I'm all for equality and inclusion, but why in the world --- especially after rejecting theism in his first two points --- does he invoke the "image of God?"

RETURNING TO MY OWN STRUGGLE

Reading Marcus Borg's Meeting Jesus Again (For The First Time) was instrumental in my move from fundamentalistism to liberal Christianity. I actually sent Borg a brief email (to which he replied) thanking him for showing me how to toss out the bathwater without losing the baby --- how to remain Christian without believing the fundamental doctrines. But the more I've learned, the more I've wondered what motivates liberal theologians to attempt to save the church rather than to abandon it. This they hope to do by redefining the terms of their faith. The resurrection was spiritual, not physical. Salvation refers to the application of spiritual salve, not to avoidance of damnation. Atonement becomes "at-one-ment." The cross becomes a symbol of "dying to self" and being reborn as a compassionate and altruistic person. The minister who conducted the membership classes I took when joining the UCC redefined the trinity as a symbol of three ways in which we see God: In the creation; In others; In ourselves. He also taught that if we see its difficult passages as metaphor, the bible could be just as valuable to us as it is to the modern fundamentalists who, like the superstitious ancients, view those passages as fact.

Why do the liberals insist on preserving and redefining these things? Is it because they realize that if they reject them out of hand they undermine the very foundation of the faith they seem so desperate to cling to?

Hey, as I review this post, it's beginning to look like I've been doing some desperate clinging myself. Otherwise, why would I allow the scheduling of Spong's visit as an excuse to postpone my exit from the church?

gb

[James Peter]

I can only answer for myself gd (and I guess those scholar's I've met and gotten a good feel for) but I'd say that the belief that Jesus really was significant and that if we can just cut through all the politics and abuse...we will find something that is too important to lose.

I don't know, maybe it really is just that Christianity offers hope and purpose and those are natural things to cling to.

[gingerbreadman]

the belief that Jesus really was significant and that if we can just cut through all the politics and abuse...we will find something that is too important to lose.

I don't know, maybe it really is just that Christianity offers hope and purpose and those are natural things to cling to.

Thanks, JP. I was talking with a friend earlier today and told her I am now questioning liberal theology in the same way I questioned fundamentalism. But I see a significant difference: the liberal church welcomes questions. Who knows? If I can learn to live with questions that may never be answered (as opposed to the fundies' answers which may never be questioned), perhaps my faith will stand up to this examination of it.

gb

[NormATive]

I only go by what is recorded in the Gospels. Frankly, it really doesn't matter whether or not Jesus was an actual person, or fictional character. The philosophy stands on its own. It is strikingly similar to the teachings of Rabbi Hillel (about a century before Jesus).

Does that answer your question?

NORM

[Impresario]

Ah the old spawn of Bishop Spong?

:haha:

Rethinking the “Scholarship” of John Shelby Spong

Bishop Spong, dogmatically rejects miracles, and the intervention of a supernatural God. Therefore he must “demythologize” then “remythologize”
the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Biblical narratives (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism -RBF p. 237).

His substitute is a rhetorical question: Is not the primary message of the Easter narratives that even the barrier of death must not deter us in our quest for life and love? (RBF p. 146)

This is hardly a message for which the apostles, and countless martyrs since, were prepared to be tortured and killed. Spong’s view presents a Christ who is a failure; the truly good man who was defeated by a cruel death. Bishop Richard Holloway of Edinburgh rightly comments: Spong leaves us with a God who cannot save because he has no control of nature or history. He offers us a dead Messiah who only 'lives' because of the wishful thinking of his first disciples.

Next, Spong denies a physical resurrection, and denies that Paul taught it. He fails to realize that the Jews regarded the body as an integral part of Man, so the resurrection must include the body:

The notion that Jesus was resurrected in a totally spiritual sense, while his old body lay in the grave, is a purely modern conception. First-century Jewish thinking would never had accepted such a view and that is not how Jesus' resurrection was proclaimed in the earliest accounts. It would have been impossible for resurrection claims to survive in the face of a tomb containing the corpse of Jesus. [Paul Barnett, Peter Jensen and David Peterson, Resurrection: Truth and Reality]

Spong’s pet hate is fundamentalism, and he portrays “fundamentalists” as bigoted ignoramuses, whereas those who agree with him are highly learned and intellectual.

Is the Bible really littered with the problems and contradictions that Spong claims it is?

How reliable are the arguments Spong draws from history, the Bible, Theology or science?

Sigh - Click HERE for the Total repudiation of the Ex-Bishop Spong: See the reprinted article from: Apologia
is the journal of the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society (www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1119.asp)

[Impresario]

www.christian-apologetics.org/html/Whats_wrong_Spong.htm (Hotlink:
What's Wrong With Bishop Spong?


Oh when will we enjoy the return of the Edit feature?

[Impresario]

http://www.christian-apologetics.org/html/Whats_wrong_Spong.htm

I give up.

[Impresario]

ON MIRACLES

As I stated in the original post, I don't believe in miracles. My response to the question, "Why CAN'T miracles happen," I would have to file that in the same folder with, "Why CAN'T there be extraterrestrials who abduct and probe rednecks and vandalize crops?" and the same question as applied to the existence of dragons and leprechauns, the restorative powers of certain crystals, and so forth. Sure, I suppose miracles CAN happen. I think it's safe to say they don't, but I can't prove it.

It would seem to me that reports of miracles in the bible were intended to lend authority to the story being told. People were definitely superstitious in those days. So instead of simply saying, "These are our laws. They were compiled by Moses," the story-teller adds miracles. "The laws were given to Moses by THE LORD himself on a mountaintop! What, you don't believe that? Too bad. The Hebrews didn't believe it either, so the Lord didn't allow them to enter the promised land of milk and honey."

Notice the parallel with the story of Jesus. Why place his teachings above those of the other sages and rabbis of his era? "Because he was the Son Of God! The miracles prove it! What, you don't believe that? Too bad. No heaven for you."

ON SPONG'S 12 THESES

I agree with 1-6 and 8-11. No. 7 indicates to me that Spong does not deny the centrality of the resurrection to Christianity. So he simply redefines it. It wasn't a physical resurrection. It was a "spiritual" resurrection. As for #12, I'm all for equality and inclusion, but why in the world --- especially after rejecting theism in his first two points --- does he invoke the "image of God?"

RETURNING TO MY OWN STRUGGLE

Reading Marcus Borg's Meeting Jesus Again (For The First Time) was instrumental in my move from fundamentalistism to liberal Christianity. I actually sent Borg a brief email (to which he replied) thanking him for showing me how to toss out the bathwater without losing the baby --- how to remain Christian without believing the fundamental doctrines. But the more I've learned, the more I've wondered what motivates liberal theologians to attempt to save the church rather than to abandon it. This they hope to do by redefining the terms of their faith. The resurrection was spiritual, not physical. Salvation refers to the application of spiritual salve, not to avoidance of damnation. Atonement becomes "at-one-ment." The cross becomes a symbol of "dying to self" and being reborn as a compassionate and altruistic person. The minister who conducted the membership classes I took when joining the UCC redefined the trinity as a symbol of three ways in which we see God: In the creation; In others; In ourselves. He also taught that if we see its difficult passages as metaphor, the bible could be just as valuable to us as it is to the modern fundamentalists who, like the superstitious ancients, view those passages as fact.

Why do the liberals insist on preserving and redefining these things? Is it because they realize that if they reject them out of hand they undermine the very foundation of the faith they seem so desperate to cling to?

Hey, as I review this post, it's beginning to look like I've been doing some desperate clinging myself. Otherwise, why would I allow the scheduling of Spong's visit as an excuse to postpone my exit from the church?

gb

Marcus borg?

Why major in the heretics or Apostates FROM the Christian Faith?

If you don't want to follow the Christian Faith - don't.

[NormATive]

You know, I could go point by point with you, but I find it tiresome to do all that line by line refutation, and it looks petty to the casual observer.

Suffice it to say that my world does not depend on a coherent theology, so I really don't care whether my beliefs are the correct ones. I mean, that's the nature of faith, isn't it?

I go to church because I love the people there. I admire Christianity because it seems just and right to me. For that matter, so does Judaism. I kind of enjoy the festivals, and as a group, they tend to have more fun. I can find something to admire in just about every faith group I've encountered - even the Voodun I experienced in Haiti 20 years ago. It's just that I am most familiar with Christianity and Judaism, so why go to the trouble of investing a lot of energy in something else?

Truth? I've really given up on that one. No one can know absolute truth. How about being true to yourself? Today I feel this way. Tomorrow is something else. My Grandmother used to say "G-d's will is whatever He puts on your plate that day." She never bothered with fretting over every little detail of correct doctrine. She was too busy caring for the sick, tending to the poor, and being a good neighbor.

This is what I mean about following the "teachings" of Jesus. I have no way of really knowing for sure that the words recorded in the New Testament are actually his, or a reinvention of Hillel's ministry. Or, perhaps it was born of the imagination of a 1st Century Schul teacher. If we live by the words, and find it profitable, does it really matter? To you, perhaps. Fine. For me, it doesn't have relevance.

I like the Jewish people's emphasis on living for today. The Tanakh is virtually devoid of mention of the afterlife, and many Jews don't believe there is anything beyond death. The Kingdom is an earthly one, and our mission is here and now. What good does it do to store up treasure in heaven if you treat your neighbor like hell?

It's been nice chatting with you, AP. I admire your convictions, and I just hope you live by what you preach. Because the Gospel of Jesus is focused on just one thing: Love.

NORM

[NormATive]

Jews regarded the body as an integral part of Man, so the resurrection must include the body:

This is a good point, and one of the few oversights on Bishop Spong's part. IF the Jews were to concoct a story of a god-man who could overcome death, he would surely come complete. As Impresario said, Jews do not practice dualism of mind and body.

However, what Jews find distasteful is the idea that the propitiation for sin would require human sacrifice. I mean, this is one of the things that separated them from their idolatrous neighbors.

NORM

[NormATive]

Marcus borg?

Why major in the heretics or Apostates FROM the Christian Faith?

If you don't want to follow the Christian Faith - don't.

Christians were considered heretics and Apostates FROM the Jewish Faith. There is nothing new under the sun, my friend.

NORM

[Sheepdog]

Is the Gospel of Jesus really focused just on love?

and how would you suppose that?

The problem with the theories that have the writers put words into Jesus' mouth (beyond basic paraphrasing, which i think does go on in the Gospels) is that it is impossible to separate the two after the fact. Typically the scholars who go that route downplay the High Christology (divinity, miracles, etc.). But why go that route, other than that is your personal preference? Could Christ not have originally portrayed himself as being otherworldly*, and the writers inserted humanity to round out his character? Since you bring the only source of information on Him into question, thus chopping off the only branch we sit on, I fail to see how we can know that one "creative community" theory is better than another.

*(this doesn't even need to allow for miracles; we could suppose for the sake of argument that Jesus was a really, really convincing con artist.)


With respect to the opening post, i must ask, why bother? sure, Christianity comes with a good morality, even despite its followers. but it's a hard morality; it's so hard, believers are inclined to say it's impossible without the indwelling of the Spirit.

really, i don't blame nonchristians for being moral relativists. it's easy, and seems to work OK a lot of the time. though it's impossible to please God without faith, without faith there is no reason to try to please God in the first place.

[Sheepdog]

However, what Jews find distasteful is the idea that the propitiation for sin would require human sacrifice. I mean, this is one of the things that separated them from their idolatrous neighbors.

NORM


what about self sacrifice? i recall a story where several hundred Jews would rather be executed than bow to images of Caesar. (as i recall the story, the Romans relented.) this i know was looked on positively, and i think that's why Christ's sacrifice overcame that abhorrence for so many. it's not just that he died to propitiate my sin, he died so that i could "live."

[ApologiaPhoenix]

ON MIRACLES

As I stated in the original post, I don't believe in miracles. My response to the question, "Why CAN'T miracles happen," I would have to file that in the same folder with, "Why CAN'T there be extraterrestrials who abduct and probe rednecks and vandalize crops?" and the same question as applied to the existence of dragons and leprechauns, the restorative powers of certain crystals, and so forth. Sure, I suppose miracles CAN happen. I think it's safe to say they don't, but I can't prove it.

But bailey, how do you know about these things without some sort of authority and what is the authority in naturalism? You see, in order to know that miracles cannot happen and have never happened, you would have to know all of history. Instead, you're approaching history with a presupposition that I don't think allows you to approach the text fairly.


It would seem to me that reports of miracles in the bible were intended to lend authority to the story being told. People were definitely superstitious in those days.

First off, could you please tell me what you mean by the word superstitious? I don't want a dictionary definition, I want your definition.

Secondly then, can you give evidence that the ancients were like this? As one who has read them, I'm quite skeptical of such a claim.


So instead of simply saying, "These are our laws. They were compiled by Moses," the story-teller adds miracles. "The laws were given to Moses by THE LORD himself on a mountaintop! What, you don't believe that? Too bad. The Hebrews didn't believe it either, so the Lord didn't allow them to enter the promised land of milk and honey."

But this presupposes that the miracles didn't happen. Have you considered that the writing of Deuteronomy for instance matches well with the vassal treaties of the time as is shown in Meredith Kline's "Treaty of the Great King"?


Notice the parallel with the story of Jesus. Why place his teachings above those of the other sages and rabbis of his era? "Because he was the Son Of God! The miracles prove it! What, you don't believe that? Too bad. No heaven for you."

Christ's teachings had very little new and they were not anything the apostles would have died for as well as the early church. They died because of the claims of the one who provided those teachings.



I agree with 1-6 and 8-11. No. 7 indicates to me that Spong does not deny the centrality of the resurrection to Christianity. So he simply redefines it. It wasn't a physical resurrection. It was a "spiritual" resurrection. As for #12, I'm all for equality and inclusion, but why in the world --- especially after rejecting theism in his first two points --- does he invoke the "image of God?"

Let's look at these.


Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.

Upon what basis is this assertion made? He states that most theological God-talk is meaningless. Alright. How does he determine unless he has some idea of what God-talk isn't meaningless?

Based on that idea, #2 is out.


#3 The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.

Please tell me where the creation is described as "perfect."


#4 The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

How so?


#5 The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

Baseless assertion


6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.

Baseless assertion


7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

What does raised into the meaning of God mean anyhow? Secondly, it's never described as a resuscitation. Strauss killed the swoon theory long ago.


8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.

How so?


9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

Just Scripture itself. Don't forget that it speaks of the Law written on our hearts.


10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

Baseless assertion


11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

Go through Acts and tell me where Hell is mentioned as the reason for believing in Christianity.


12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

I really don't have a problem with this one. Of course, I do wonder what he means by God's image since God talk is supposedly meaningless and I wonder upon what moral basis he states this.





Reading Marcus Borg's Meeting Jesus Again (For The First Time) was instrumental in my move from fundamentalistism to liberal Christianity. I actually sent Borg a brief email (to which he replied) thanking him for showing me how to toss out the bathwater without losing the baby --- how to remain Christian without believing the fundamental doctrines. But the more I've learned, the more I've wondered what motivates liberal theologians to attempt to save the church rather than to abandon it. This they hope to do by redefining the terms of their faith. The resurrection was spiritual, not physical. Salvation refers to the application of spiritual salve, not to avoidance of damnation. Atonement becomes "at-one-ment." The cross becomes a symbol of "dying to self" and being reborn as a compassionate and altruistic person. The minister who conducted the membership classes I took when joining the UCC redefined the trinity as a symbol of three ways in which we see God: In the creation; In others; In ourselves. He also taught that if we see its difficult passages as metaphor, the bible could be just as valuable to us as it is to the modern fundamentalists who, like the superstitious ancients, view those passages as fact.

I asked earlier for your definition of superstitious. Could you give me yours of fundamentalist?


Why do the liberals insist on preserving and redefining these things? Is it because they realize that if they reject them out of hand they undermine the very foundation of the faith they seem so desperate to cling to?

Hey, as I review this post, it's beginning to look like I've been doing some desperate clinging myself. Otherwise, why would I allow the scheduling of Spong's visit as an excuse to postpone my exit from the church?

gb

But if you redefine everything in the faith, is it still the faith? I doubt it.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

You know, I could go point by point with you, but I find it tiresome to do all that line by line refutation, and it looks petty to the casual observer.

Nah. Just have everyone else do it. Soon as the questions start getting answered, then it's time to fall back. Got it!


Suffice it to say that my world does not depend on a coherent theology, so I really don't care whether my beliefs are the correct ones. I mean, that's the nature of faith, isn't it?

So your worldview is incoherent and that's not a problem? Do you believe logically contradictory statements can both be true then?

Also, no. That isn't the nature of faith. You should not hold any belief simply because you like it or don't like it. You should hold a belief because it's true. Reality does not bend to fit your sentiments.


I go to church because I love the people there. I admire Christianity because it seems just and right to me. For that matter, so does Judaism. I kind of enjoy the festivals, and as a group, they tend to have more fun. I can find something to admire in just about every faith group I've encountered - even the Voodun I experienced in Haiti 20 years ago. It's just that I am most familiar with Christianity and Judaism, so why go to the trouble of investing a lot of energy in something else?

One of the great philosophical errors of our time is equating happiness with having fun. It seems that people think also that when you choose a scientific belief, you should choose one based on facts, but with religion, choose one based on emotion. Why should this be so? Aren't there ideas about reality that science can't tell us? For instance, you speak a lot of love. Can science really tell you what love is?


Truth? I've really given up on that one. No one can know absolute truth.

Do you know no one can know absolute truth? Do you have absolute knowledge of what everyone knows to know that they don't know the absolute truth? (Note: You must know the absolute truth which cannot be known to know that no one knows it.)

I will say for clarification that we cannot know all the truth but we can know some truth and we can know that two contradictory statements can't be true.


How about being true to yourself? Today I feel this way. Tomorrow is something else.

Oh cool. So if I wake up tomorrow and I feel like rape is okay.....


My Grandmother used to say "G-d's will is whatever He puts on your plate that day." She never bothered with fretting over every little detail of correct doctrine. She was too busy caring for the sick, tending to the poor, and being a good neighbor.

And how do you know that maybe God doesn't hate those actions? Maybe God wants us to go out and rob the poor. How will we know otherwise unless he's revealed himself in some way. How do you have him revealing himself?


This is what I mean about following the "teachings" of Jesus. I have no way of really knowing for sure that the words recorded in the New Testament are actually his, or a reinvention of Hillel's ministry. Or, perhaps it was born of the imagination of a 1st Century Schul teacher. If we live by the words, and find it profitable, does it really matter? To you, perhaps. Fine. For me, it doesn't have relevance.

It's called Christianity for a reason. Christianity is not about submission to a set of ideas about the way the world works. (Although, it does include ideas about that.) It's not about following a set of ideas on how to treat your neighbor. (Although it does include ideas about that, but an atheist could do those things.) It's about Christ. The Christians were called to be submitted to a living Lord. They weren't submitted to one who was still dying. They were told to deny Christ or die. They weren't told "Stop helping the poor or die", or "Stop caring for the sick or die." No. They were told to deny Christ or die.

Christianity then is about if you are submissive to Christ. Do you call him your Lord and your God? If not, you may have a nice little religion about loving your fellow man, but it certainly isn't Christianity.

And finally, if this is the case, then we must say that all the apostles and the leaders and members of the early church were fools for they were willing abundantly to die rather than deny Christ.


I like the Jewish people's emphasis on living for today. The Tanakh is virtually devoid of mention of the afterlife, and many Jews don't believe there is anything beyond death. The Kingdom is an earthly one, and our mission is here and now. What good does it do to store up treasure in heaven if you treat your neighbor like hell?

Nothing wrong with living well today, but I'd also say that if this life isn't all there is, I certainly hope I'm well in the next one! You can say you like a teaching. What matters is is that teaching true?


It's been nice chatting with you, AP. I admire your convictions, and I just hope you live by what you preach. Because the Gospel of Jesus is focused on just one thing: Love.

NORM

Unfortunately Norm, without orthodox Christian doctrines that you have already rejected, there is no basis for love existing in the universe. You either have Christianity, or you do not have a basis for love.

Now do you want to answer my questions?

Is God material?

Is God eternal?

Is matter eternal?

[Hail Mary]

I'll be very surprised if you get a substantive reply. :smile:

[NormATive]

Is the Gospel of Jesus really focused just on love?

and how would you suppose that?

Actually, you bring up a good point. I suppose the love part is what is most unique about Jesus' alleged ministry. Another unique point is the emphasis on personal responsibility. Of course, this is another hallmark of Hillel's teachings. It's really a modernistic worldview of sorts. The more I think about it, the more I believe that Jesus, although most probably an actual historical figure, is a compilation of "the best of" Jewish thought in the first century through the third.


The problem with the theories that have the writers put words into Jesus' mouth (beyond basic paraphrasing, which i think does go on in the Gospels) is that it is impossible to separate the two after the fact. Typically the scholars who go that route downplay the High Christology (divinity, miracles, etc.). But why go that route, other than that is your personal preference?

Because by tethering Christology to INSISTENCE on belief in miracles relegates the religion to all of the other mystery religions of the era. I think Christians would be wise to do as the Jews did following the Holocaust and abandon insistence on the supernatural.


Could Christ not have originally portrayed himself as being otherworldly*, and the writers inserted humanity to round out his character? Since you bring the only source of information on Him into question, thus chopping off the only branch we sit on, I fail to see how we can know that one "creative community" theory is better than another.

*(this doesn't even need to allow for miracles; we could suppose for the sake of argument that Jesus was a really, really convincing con artist.)

Interesting regurgitation of CS Lewis' Mere Christianity. I give you FIFTY points for creativity. :cheers:



With respect to the opening post, i must ask, why bother? sure, Christianity comes with a good morality, even despite its followers. but it's a hard morality; it's so hard, believers are inclined to say it's impossible without the indwelling of the Spirit.

Because moral behavior is a GOOD thing, no matter the motivation. Doing the right thing is always the "hard way." Nonetheless, it's what we (ought) to teach our children. It doesn't matter to me whether your inspiration is from a first century itinerant preacher / philosopher or some guru sitting on a mountaintop. The OUTCOME is what is important in my mind.


really, i don't blame nonchristians for being moral relativists. it's easy, and seems to work OK a lot of the time. though it's impossible to please God without faith, without faith there is no reason to try to please God in the first place.

I disagree. Pleasing G-d isn't the point. Making the world a better place for having us around IS. Pleasing the gods is an archaic notion, IMHO.

NORM

[Impresario]

Christians were considered heretics and Apostates FROM the Jewish Faith. There is nothing new under the sun, my friend.

NORM

Ummmm, not really.

Where you been boyo?

Ever read Acts 5?



The Apostles Persecuted

17Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 20"Go, stand in the temple courts," he said, "and tell the people the full message of this new life."


21At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people.

When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel—and sent to the jail for the apostles. 22But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, 23"We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside." 24On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled, wondering what would come of this.

25Then someone came and said, "Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people." 26At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.
27Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28"We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."

29Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."

33When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

40His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
41The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. 42Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.

I was indending to hight a key fact here for Jews for Atheism or Nihilism, or what ever crapola fits their fancy du jour:





Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. ....

[oy]

35Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38Therefore, in the present case I advise you:

Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."



So according the followers of "the Way", ot the early Jews for Jesus - (e.g. Peter and John) were *NOT* considered "heretics".

For the rabbi Gamaliel he clearly IMO, maybe thought these young Jewish boys are good, very ggod, maybe mixed up, but then again, mabe "I dunno".

yeak, that was the ticket, "I dunno", let us wait and see and accordingly: "THESE THESE NICE JEWISH BOYS ALONE!"

Oy.

What you wanna do stir things up and for what?

Because your a schmuck?

Back on track:

Ex-Bishop Spong fallacious reductio ad absurdum.

Spong: "I cannot and I do not believe in the physical resurrection."

Oy

Been here done this 2,000 years ago.

Consider that the Sadducees used that one against the Resurrection—Matthew 22:23–34:
23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.

24 ‘Teacher,‘ they said, ‘Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.

25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.

27 Finally, the woman died.

28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?‘
Note that they tried to refute the Resurrection by showing that it leads to the absurd conclusion that in this hypothetical situation the woman would not know whose wife she is. Jesus’ answer shows the masterful logic of the Logos of God.
29 Jesus replied, ‘You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
Note that Jesus points out that the starting presuppositions are wrong—the Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch as Scripture, while Jesus, like the Pharisees, accepted the same books as the Protestant Old Testament.

If they had not been ignorant of what the Scriptures were, they would have realised that Scriptures like Dan. 12:2 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=dan+12:2&version=NIV&showfn=on) clearly teach the Resurrection.

Then Jesus notes that if a conclusion of a valid argument is false, then it is enough for only one of the premises to be false. The false premise in the Sadducees’ argument was not the resurrection, but that people would be married in heaven:
30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
However, refuting any number of arguments against a position does not in itself prove that position. So Jesus proved His own position, on the Sadducees’ own terms, using Scripture they accepted:

Geez, where did the Ex-Bishop and heretic Psong come from?

Matthew 22:
31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you,

32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.‘

33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together.
I merged your back to back posts this time. But please don't do back to back replies in the future. To edit your post, click to the space just to the right of your username in your post. This will open a blue box with the option to edit your post. Click Edit to edit your post.

if you change your mind and want to cancel, click the spot next to your name again.

[NormATive]

Nah. Just have everyone else do it. Soon as the questions start getting answered, then it's time to fall back. Got it!

Oh, if you insist...




So your worldview is incoherent and that's not a problem? Do you believe logically contradictory statements can both be true then?

I said it MIGHT be incoherent. I believe that it isn't, but I'm not vain enough to believe that I MUST be right. And, yes, I believe that it is possible for contradictory statements to both be true by our own standards. Logic is a creation of the human mind. It may or may not be "true."


You should not hold any belief simply because you like it or don't like it. You should hold a belief because it's true. Reality does not bend to fit your sentiments.

But, in actuality that's exactly what we do. Or, perhaps a better way of putting it is that we tend to choose the religion closest to what is popular within our immediate culture. If I were born in Saudi Arabia, I might just as well embrace Allah as L-rd, or Japan; Shintoism.




One of the great philosophical errors of our time is equating happiness with having fun.

"Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you shall die." - Yeah, an AWFUL philosophy! What book of tripe is that from?


It seems that people think also that when you choose a scientific belief, you should choose one based on facts, but with religion, choose one based on emotion. Why should this be so? Aren't there ideas about reality that science can't tell us? For instance, you speak a lot of love. Can science really tell you what love is?

I don't really care WHAT love is. I just know that it makes me happy. Oh, damn it! There I go again!!



Do you know no one can know absolute truth? Do you have absolute knowledge of what everyone knows to know that they don't know the absolute truth? (Note: You must know the absolute truth which cannot be known to know that no one knows it.)

I will say for clarification that we cannot know all the truth but we can know some truth and we can know that two contradictory statements can't be true.

I speak only for myself. Perhaps you really have found it. You are a truly great person.




Oh cool. So if I wake up tomorrow and I feel like rape is okay.....

Yes. As human beings, I believe we all have it in us to do unspeakable things. Society (a humanistic adventure to be sure) deems this as "bad behavior." I concur. But, it is an important distinction that we have come to this conclusion as a collective, thinking society - not as a dictum from G-d. Rape of women was actually CONDONED by theocracies of the past, as was human sacrifice. Thankfully, we've abandoned this notion.

In fact, one of the challenges facing society currently is bringing fundamentalist Muslims into the 21st Century. Our hope doesn't lie in embracing religious dogmatism, it lies in embracing HUMANISM.


And how do you know that maybe God doesn't hate those actions? Maybe God wants us to go out and rob the poor. How will we know otherwise unless he's revealed himself in some way. How do you have him revealing himself?

Yes. Indeed, thank you for bringing that up. At times in history, folks have interpreted HOLY WRIT to condone things like slavery and brutality. Some folks were very sincere in their belief that these were the WORDS OF GOD. We must not rely on "revelation" because what if we get it wrong? What if the "authorities" use our devotion and desire to please our gods against us. Oh, THAT will never happen! :pray:




It's called Christianity for a reason. Christianity is not about submission to a set of ideas about the way the world works. (Although, it does include ideas about that.) It's not about following a set of ideas on how to treat your neighbor. (Although it does include ideas about that, but an atheist could do those things.) It's about Christ. The Christians were called to be submitted to a living Lord. They weren't submitted to one who was still dying. They were told to deny Christ or die. They weren't told "Stop helping the poor or die", or "Stop caring for the sick or die." No. They were told to deny Christ or die.

Christianity then is about if you are submissive to Christ. Do you call him your Lord and your God? If not, you may have a nice little religion about loving your fellow man, but it certainly isn't Christianity.

And finally, if this is the case, then we must say that all the apostles and the leaders and members of the early church were fools for they were willing abundantly to die rather than deny Christ.

I admire anyone who wilingly gives up his life for a conviction. That, however, is not a quid-pro-quo for that conviction's veracity. I mean, you have hundreds of radical, fundamentalist Muslims blowing themselves up for Allah. Does that make Wahabbism TRUTH?




Nothing wrong with living well today, but I'd also say that if this life isn't all there is, I certainly hope I'm well in the next one! You can say you like a teaching. What matters is is that teaching true?

But, we LIVE in this one. There's no gaurantee there IS another life. We KNOW this one exists. Why not make the most of it? What matters is how you treat your wife. What matters is how you teach your children. What matters is loving your neighbor as yourself.




Unfortunately Norm, without orthodox Christian doctrines that you have already rejected, there is no basis for love existing in the universe. You either have Christianity, or you do not have a basis for love.

I strongly disagree. Are you saying that ONLY Christians can love?


Now do you want to answer my questions?

Is God material?

Is God eternal?

Is matter eternal?

Sure. Why not? 1. Which god? The G-d of the Hebrews is spirit according to the Tanakh. The Christian Diety is flesh and blood according to tradition. The Buddah believed that God was in all things. Will the real god PLEASE SIT DOWN!!??

2. I don't know.

3. I don't know.

NORM

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Oh, if you insist...

Your choice always.






I said it MIGHT be incoherent. I believe that it isn't, but I'm not vain enough to believe that I MUST be right. And, yes, I believe that it is possible for contradictory statements to both be true by our own standards. Logic is a creation of the human mind. It may or may not be "true."

If logic is a creation, then we can change it as we see fit. After all, we are the masters over it and we will make it what we want. Do you want us to change it then so that contradictory statements can always be true?




But, in actuality that's exactly what we do. Or, perhaps a better way of putting it is that we tend to choose the religion closest to what is popular within our immediate culture. If I were born in Saudi Arabia, I might just as well embrace Allah as L-rd, or Japan; Shintoism.

But that's also irrelevant. It doesn't matter necessarily how we choose a belief. It matters if the belief is true or not.






"Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you shall die." - Yeah, an AWFUL philosophy! What book of tripe is that from?

Paul was quoting the pagan philosophers at that point. It is along the lines of Epicurianism. I doubt the historical Epicurius would agree entirely.




I don't really care WHAT love is. I just know that it makes me happy. Oh, damn it! There I go again!!

I don't care what this is I'm eating! It could be poison but darn it, it tastes good! Now let's see. You say Christ's teaching is focused just on love, but you don't know what love is. Interesting.





I speak only for myself. Perhaps you really have found it. You are a truly great person.

Here's a little exercise to show you must know at least one absolutely true statement. I set up a proposition called "A"

A states that there are no absolute truths.

Now let's make B in response

B says "A is true." If so, then this is contradictory as B is an absolute truth.
B says "A is false" in which case there are absolute truths.

Yes. We don't know all truth, but we do know some truth.






Yes. As human beings, I believe we all have it in us to do unspeakable things. Society (a humanistic adventure to be sure) deems this as "bad behavior." I concur. But, it is an important distinction that we have come to this conclusion as a collective, thinking society - not as a dictum from G-d. Rape of women was actually CONDONED by theocracies of the past, as was human sacrifice. Thankfully, we've abandoned this notion.

In fact, one of the challenges facing society currently is bringing fundamentalist Muslims into the 21st Century. Our hope doesn't lie in embracing religious dogmatism, it lies in embracing HUMANISM.

Could you please tell me the moral foundation by which you call rape unspeakable?

Could you also tell me the moral foundation in Humanism?




Yes. Indeed, thank you for bringing that up. At times in history, folks have interpreted HOLY WRIT to condone things like slavery and brutality. Some folks were very sincere in their belief that these were the WORDS OF GOD. We must not rely on "revelation" because what if we get it wrong? What if the "authorities" use our devotion and desire to please our gods against us. Oh, THAT will never happen! :pray:

The revelation is infallable but the interpreters are not. I would be glad to discuss the social and historical context of slavery in biblical times if need be. However, this seems odd to say that we must not rely on revelation because we could get it wrong. As if with everything else there's no chance?






I admire anyone who wilingly gives up his life for a conviction. That, however, is not a quid-pro-quo for that conviction's veracity. I mean, you have hundreds of radical, fundamentalist Muslims blowing themselves up for Allah. Does that make Wahabbism TRUTH?

Dying for a claim does not determine the truth of the claim. It does show one thing though. The person who dies does believe that it is true. Thus, all the martyrs of the early church died because they were ignorant of truth?






But, we LIVE in this one. There's no gaurantee there IS another life. We KNOW this one exists. Why not make the most of it? What matters is how you treat your wife. What matters is how you teach your children. What matters is loving your neighbor as yourself.

Yes we do. There is no guarantee that there is no other life though? Why not choose the option that lets you win both ways? I choose Christ to live for him in this life and in the next one. If there is no afterlife, well vis a vis Pascal, I've already lived a good life following his teachings. If there is one though, it's even better. If you live only loving your neighbor though and there is one and you haven't made Christ your Lord, well....






I strongly disagree. Are you saying that ONLY Christians can love?

Not at all. I'm saying that Christians are the only ones who have an explanation for the existence of love.




Sure. Why not? 1. Which god? The G-d of the Hebrews is spirit according to the Tanakh. The Christian Diety is flesh and blood according to tradition. The Buddah believed that God was in all things. Will the real god PLEASE SIT DOWN!!??

The one you believe in.


2. I don't know.

3. I don't know.

NORM

Then it's time to think on those questions.

[gingerbreadman]

First off, could you please tell me what you mean by the word superstitious? I don't want a dictionary definition, I want your definition. Secondly then, can you give evidence that the ancients were like this? As one who has read them, I'm quite skeptical of such a claim.

In this sense I meant superstition to mean a tendency to believe that ordinary events have supernatural causes. Examples: If the Hebrews lose a battle, YHWH must be angry with them. If a man prospers, YHWH must be pleased with him.


Christ's teachings had very little new and they were not anything the apostles would have died for as well as the early church. They died because of the claims of the one who provided those teachings.

If the fact that people are willing to die for their beliefs validates their beliefs, perhaps the Jonestown and Heaven's Gate people --- not to mention the suicidal terrorists of 9/11--- were right.


I asked earlier for your definition of superstitious. Could you give me yours of fundamentalist?

There are those who feel that certain doctrines are fundamental to Christianity; that is, you must believe these doctrines in order to be truly Christian. This way of thinking is based on a series of booklets called The Fundamentals, published in the early 20th century. Today the list of fundamentals may differ from one fundamentalist sect to another, but it usually includes the inerrancy of the bible, and the virgin birth, atoning sacrifice, physical resurrection, and imminent return of Jesus. The people I think of as fundamentalist are sometimes described as conservative or evangelical Christians, but I know conservative and evangelical Christians who aren't fundamentalist.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

In this sense I meant superstition to mean a tendency to believe that ordinary events have supernatural causes. Examples: If the Hebrews lose a battle, YHWH must be angry with them. If a man prospers, YHWH must be pleased with him.

Neither of those are definitions. Both are examples. I need the definition by which you recognize the examples.




if the fact that people are willing to die for their beliefs validates their beliefs, perhaps the Jonestown and Heaven's Gate people --- not to mention the suicidal terrorists of 9/11--- were right.

No. It shows though that they believe that they are right. Now why would the apostles be so willing to die for their beliefs if they were false? Not a one of them recanted.




There are those who feel that certain doctrines are fundamental to Christianity; that is, you must believe these doctrines in order to be truly Christian. This way of thinking is based on a series of booklets called The Fundamentals, published in the early 20th century. Today the list of fundamentals may differ from one fundamentalist sect to another, but it usually includes the inerrancy of the bible, and the virgin birth, atoning sacrifice, physical resurrection, and imminent return of Jesus. The people I think of as fundamentalist are sometimes described as conservative or evangelical Christians, but I know conservative and evangelical Christians who aren't fundamentalist.

Glad you recognize that as I am not a fundamentalist, but I do hold to doctrines such as the virgin birth and physical resurrection.

Now could you please tell me the basis upon which you have decided that no miracles could have happened in history?

[gingerbreadman]

Neither of those are definitions. Both are examples. I need the definition by which you recognize the examples.

AP, you asked what I meant by superstition. My answer was, "In this sense I meant superstition to mean a tendency to believe that ordinary events have supernatural causes. Examples: If the Hebrews lose a battle, YHWH must be angry with them. If a man prospers, YHWH must be pleased with him." The first sentence was the definition by which I recognized the examples in the second sentence.


No. It shows though that they believe that they are right. Now why would the apostles be so willing to die for their beliefs if they were false? Not a one of them recanted.


The early Christians also died because they believed they were right. Why would the Heaven's Gate followers be so willing to die for their beliefs if they were false? The forty who died didn't recant, either.
Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't see the distinction you're trying to make.


Now could you please tell me the basis upon which you have decided that no miracles could have happened in history?

I really hate to be repetitive, but here's what I said earlier: "Sure, I suppose miracles CAN happen. I think it's safe to say they don't, but I can't prove it."

[ApologiaPhoenix]

AP, you asked what I meant by superstition. My answer was, "In this sense I meant superstition to mean a tendency to believe that ordinary events have supernatural causes. Examples: If the Hebrews lose a battle, YHWH must be angry with them. If a man prospers, YHWH must be pleased with him." The first sentence was the definition by which I recognized the examples in the second sentence.

But this is also begging the question. You take superstitious to mean that deities do not act in the world. I would also note that this idea you're espousing about YHWH's attitudes while it has some merit was denied by YHWH himself in the book of Job. The only case this happened in was in response to promises already made by YHWH, such as happened in the Babylonian exile.

But let us get to your point again. How is it that you can establish with certainty that YHWH did not act in history? Is there a way to do such without begging the question?





The early Christians also died because they believed they were right. Why would the Heaven's Gate followers be so willing to die for their beliefs if they were false? The forty who died didn't recant, either.
Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't see the distinction you're trying to make.

Why would they? Because they believed they had something better coming. Why do Muslim bombers blow themselves up? Because they believe that they have 70 virgins waiting for them. All this shows is that they were sure that they were right. Now, can you tell me what the early Christians were sure that they were right about?




I really hate to be repetitive, but here's what I said earlier: "Sure, I suppose miracles CAN happen. I think it's safe to say they don't, but I can't prove it."

Then you've made a statement of faith and I haven't seen any evidence to back this statement. However, this statement is coloring how you're reading the biblical texts and it's not enabling you to come to them in a fair way.

[NormATive]

If logic is a creation, then we can change it as we see fit. After all, we are the masters over it and we will make it what we want. Do you want us to change it then so that contradictory statements can always be true?

That would be nice! Thanks.


I said:
Or, perhaps a better way of putting it is that we tend to choose the religion closest to what is popular within our immediate culture. If I were born in Saudi Arabia, I might just as well embrace Allah as L-rd, or Japan; Shintoism



But that's also irrelevant. It doesn't matter necessarily how we choose a belief. It matters if the belief is true or not.

To the Muslim, his belief is true. To the Jew, her belief is true. To the Hindu, his belief is true. Context is NOT irrelevant. Truth, I submit, is relative. Why do you rule out the possibility that G-d chose to reveal itself to different cultures in differen ways. I mean, you believe Jonah was swallowed by a fish, don't you? I think that's whackier that believing many religions can be true at the same time.


Paul was quoting the pagan philosophers at that point. It is along the lines of Epicurianism. I doubt the historical Epicurius would agree entirely.

Actually, I was thinking of a passage from one of my favorite sections of Tanakh:


Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun. -Ecclesiastes 8:15When I was a kid, I memorized large chunks of the Bible. We had these little contests called "Bible Drills." I was our church's campion 8 years in a row. I once memorized nearly half of the book of Isaiah (that was my favorite book). I had all of the Gospels memorized. I can still quote most of Mark (my favorite NT book).

Of course, for me, the best part about the pasage in Ecclesiastes is the clincher:


When I applied mine heart to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done upon the earth: (for also there is that neither day nor night seeth sleep with his eyes:)
Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find itKind of appropriate given this thread, dontcha' think!?

I totally forgot about the similar passage in Luke. BTW, Paul didn't write Luke.


Could you please tell me the moral foundation by which you call rape unspeakable?

Could you also tell me the moral foundation in Humanism?

Sure. Societal standards. Rape hurts.

The moral foundation of humanism is sort of a distillation of wisdom from the ages - including the Bible.


The revelation is infallable but the interpreters are not.

Are you saying G-d screwed it up? You would think G-d would take special care in disseminating the message of the ages. Why didn't It make the interpreters infallible? You would think any god worth his or her salt would maintain the integrity of THE MESSAGE - especially when you consider the consequences of NOT GETTING IT RIGHT.


I would be glad to discuss the social and historical context of slavery in biblical times if need be.

Wasn't talking about slavery in biblical times, sweetie. I was referring to our very own US of A. The Bible was used EXTENSIVELY to justify slavery. Look it up. Of course, one could justify belief in green cheese on the moon using the Bible as a primary source.


However, this seems odd to say that we must not rely on revelation because we could get it wrong. As if with everything else there's no chance?

The question is: WHO'S REVELATION???? It is a crap shoot!

I choose them all. The best of the best. Why listen to B-Sides when you can make up your own A-Side mix?


Dying for a claim does not determine the truth of the claim. It does show one thing though. The person who dies does believe that it is true. Thus, all the martyrs of the early church died because they were ignorant of truth?

I'm not sure what your point here is, but I agree that the folks who died for their faith really believed it to be true. That was my original point.



There is no guarantee that there is no other life though? Why not choose the option that lets you win both ways? I choose Christ to live for him in this life and in the next one. If there is no afterlife, well vis a vis Pascal, I've already lived a good life following his teachings. If there is one though, it's even better. If you live only loving your neighbor though and there is one and you haven't made Christ your Lord, well....

Well, at least my neighbors like me! C'est La Vie!


I'm saying that Christians are the only ones who have an explanation for the existence of love.

Then, why are almost all of the mean people I know Christians?


The one you believe in.

The G-d I believe in is beyond definition.

NORM

[ApologiaPhoenix]

That would be nice! Thanks.

Except if that happened, there wouldn't be a difference between being nice and not being nice. If there is no LNC, no word has any meaning any more.







To the Muslim, his belief is true. To the Jew, her belief is true. To the Hindu, his belief is true. Context is NOT irrelevant. Truth, I submit, is relative. Why do you rule out the possibility that G-d chose to reveal itself to different cultures in differen ways. I mean, you believe Jonah was swallowed by a fish, don't you? I think that's whackier that believing many religions can be true at the same time.

Wow. First off, you say it's relative, but then you expect me to treat all your statements as if they are true. Sorry, but when I say X is true, I say that it is true for all peoples in all times and all places.

Now your question of God revealing himself to different people in that context is not a philosophical or theological question as much as a historical one. Looking at the historical evidence, I'm skeptical. Examining the systems philosophically, I'm even more skeptical.

As for Jonah and the fish, a miracle itself doesn't violate the laws of logic. Jesus walked on water. THat is a miracle. He did not walk on water and not walk on water in the same time and in the same sense. That is just nonsense. Even miracles abide by logic.

Why don't I believe them all to be true? It's simple. They contradict.




Actually, I was thinking of a passage from one of my favorite sections of Tanakh:

I'm thinking it's in 1 Cor. 15 also


When I was a kid, I memorized large chunks of the Bible. We had these little contests called "Bible Drills." I was our church's campion 8 years in a row. I once memorized nearly half of the book of Isaiah (that was my favorite book). I had all of the Gospels memorized. I can still quote most of Mark (my favorite NT book).

Of course, for me, the best part about the pasage in Ecclesiastes is the clincher:

Kind of appropriate given this thread, dontcha' think!?

I totally forgot about the similar passage in Luke. BTW, Paul didn't write Luke.

And do you know the perspective Ecclesiastes is written from and why the phrase "under the sun" shows up in it but not elsewhere in Scripture?

I know Paul didn't write Luke. I'm thinking of 1 Cor. 15.




Sure. Societal standards. Rape hurts.

The moral foundation of humanism is sort of a distillation of wisdom from the ages - including the Bible.

There are a number of problems with society says relativism.

First off, there is no such thing as a good moral reformer. People that stood up and said society needed to change such as Gandhi, abolitionists, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. are all wrong for telling the community to seek a standard outside itself.

Secondly, There is no way to judge another society. There is no basis then for stopping Hitler's mss murder of Jews. The holocaust was right by their standards.

Thirdly, society can never improve. Improvement would indicate a measure outside of ourselves.

Fourthly, why should anyone accept society as the standard?




Are you saying G-d screwed it up? You would think G-d would take special care in disseminating the message of the ages. Why didn't It make the interpreters infallible? You would think any god worth his or her salt would maintain the integrity of THE MESSAGE - especially when you consider the consequences of NOT GETTING IT RIGHT.

No. Man screwed up. Why didn't he make us infallable? Because we can't be perfect by definition. We're going to be finite creatures always. That which is created is by definition finite. Are the consequences serious? Yes they are. Blaming God though for someone not being willing to understand makes about as much sense as the student blaming the teacher because the student didn't get a good grade on the test.




Wasn't talking about slavery in biblical times, sweetie. I was referring to our very own US of A. The Bible was used EXTENSIVELY to justify slavery. Look it up. Of course, one could justify belief in green cheese on the moon using the Bible as a primary source.

First off, I'm a guy. It's not best to call a guy sweetie.

Secondly, I know you were referring to the Civil War. They used passages speaking about slavery from a context totally divorced from the societal context of biblical times. That's what made it invalid. They were reading what they had in mind when they saw the word slavery rather than what the authors had in mind.

Thirdly, I'd love to see your argument that there's green cheese on the moon using the Bible.




The question is: WHO'S REVELATION???? It is a crap shoot!

I choose them all. The best of the best. Why listen to B-Sides when you can make up your own A-Side mix?

The revelation that shows itself to be true. I see the evidence as strong that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. That kind of clinches his revelation.




I'm not sure what your point here is, but I agree that the folks who died for their faith really believed it to be true. That was my original point.

And what belief did the apostles and early martyrs refuse to recant of?





Well, at least my neighbors like me! C'est La Vie!

And mine like me. That means that I get to do good towards my neighbors here and get to believe in the orthodox doctrines of Christianity which if true give a nice afterlife. If I'm wrong, what have I lost?

Now if I'm right, what have you lost?




Then, why are almost all of the mean people I know Christians?

First, because a lot of Christians today are ignorant.

Secondly, because they're not acting in correspondence with their worldview, which will happen from time to time.

Thirdly though, orthodox Christians do have the only basis for explaining love in the universe.




The G-d I believe in is beyond definition.

NORM

So you define God as that which is beyond definition?

[NormATive]

you expect me to treat all your statements as if they are true.

I really wish you would actually read what I post. It makes communication go so much smoother. The whole point of every damn word I've been saying is that I can't know absolute truth any more than you can.

You are too young to figure that out yet, apparently.

Have a nice life sweetie. Try not to be mean.

NORM

[Sheepdog]

I really wish you would actually read what I post. It makes communication go so much smoother. The whole point of every damn word I've been saying is that I can't know absolute truth any more than you can.

just out of curiosity, how do you know that neither you nor AP can know absolute truth?

for a epistemic relativist, you make some rather absolutist claims.

[NormATive]

SHEEPDOGGER: just out of curiosity, how do you know that neither you nor AP can know absolute truth?Common Sense.

NORM

[Impresario]

Common Sense.

NORM

You have the common sense of a pig.

[Impresario]

Moving along:

4. Spong's View of God

Spong rejects the Christian view of God as the Creator of the universe, which is distinct from Him and utterly dependent on Him for its existence. Instead, he plays a game of word magic:

We have come to the dawning realisation that God might not be separate from us but rather deep within us. (RBF p. 33)


This redefinition of God is a form of panentheism: the view that God is in the world as a soul is in the body. But "the God within" is no God at all. It is merely another name for one's own desires and lusts. This is probably the reason that such views are appealing to the unregenerate man: such a "god" makes no ethical demands, and sends no-one into final judgement. However, it is also impossible to derive Spong's ethics from such a view. If God is within all people, then he is in fundamentalists and all the other people Spong despises. Spong provides no criterion to decide which "God within" is the right one.

http://www.christian-apologetics.org/html/Whats_wrong_Spong.htm

[One Bad Pig]

You have the common sense of a pig.

:glare: Take that back!

[Sheepdog]

Common Sense.

doesn't common sense entail some sort of objective reality? otherwise it wouldn't be so common?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I really wish you would actually read what I post. It makes communication go so much smoother. The whole point of every damn word I've been saying is that I can't know absolute truth any more than you can.

You are too young to figure that out yet, apparently.

Have a nice life sweetie. Try not to be mean.

NORM

But this is a self-refuting claim. It is tantamount to you saying "I know it is absolutely true that I cannot know absolute truth and neither can you."

And since when does age have anything to do with intellectual ability here? I would suggest you learn to deal with what I say more than whine about my age.

[Impresario]

:glare: Take that back!

Sorry, i meant to quote "casting pearls before the swine", and where some swine may have enough "common sense" not to solicit foundations for the Christian Faith.

[Impresario]

Uh - huh, and ahem, now what was it that Paul said in Rome?





Paul Preaches at Rome Under Guard

17Three days later he called together the leaders of the Jews. When they had assembled, Paul said to them: "My brothers, although I have done nothing against our people or against the customs of our ancestors, I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans. 18They examined me and wanted to release me, because I was not guilty of any crime deserving death. 19But when the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar—not that I had any charge to bring against my own people. 20For this reason I have asked to see you and talk with you. It is because of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain."

21They replied, "We have not received any letters from Judea concerning you, and none of the brothers who have come from there has reported or said anything bad about you. 22But we want to hear what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect."
23They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. 24Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement:

"The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet:

26" 'Go to this people and say,

"You will be ever hearing but never understanding;

you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."

27For this people's heart has become calloused;

they hardly hear with their ears,

and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,

hear with their ears,

understand with their hearts

and turn, and I would heal them.'


28"Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"
30For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. 31Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.

:whistle:

[Rahab]

I'm new to TWeb. I hope this is the appropriate forum for this discussion.

I've been wrestling with my own personal theology and self-identity. After finally rejecting fundamentalism several years ago I joined a very liberal UCC congregation. Now after a lot of study, reading, and thoughtful consideration I find myself at another turning point. I've examined and rejected so many orthodox Christian doctrines including the virgin birth, the miracles attributed to Jesus, his substitutionary atonement, physical resurrection, and imminent return, and the trinity. I've also abandoned the personal (anthropomorphic) concept of God. And I hear the same challenge from orthodox Christians and atheists: Why continue to call myself a Christian? Bonjour gdbailey and a warm welcome to T Web!

My walk has been similar to yours in the sense that I distanced myself from fundamentalism some years ago. Yet, I still nurture an identity as a NT christian. One often challenged by conservative christians and non theists who seem to demand that I join either of their extremes!
I am often caught in their crossfire.

IMO, gdbailey, there are some basic beliefs which are conditional to endorsing the identity of a "christian" : affirming the deity of Christ as one of the manifestations of God Himself and His redeeming value to mankind. Thus an acceptance that a physical resurrection did occur as a demonstration to mankind of God's Will to offer believers a granted access to eternal life (versus the oblivion of physical death). A Will of God dispensed by God as an act of Grace unmerited and unearned. All of those of course imply a theistic vision of God. I personaly find it difficult to embrace any of those beliefs while denying both the existence of God as an entity seperate from us and His physical manifestation thru Christ.

Perhaps, your current walk should place you in the category of "followers of the philosophical teachings of Christ" where you can still benefit from the character/behavior of Christ as your source of inspiration for your own growth. That would be IMO the trait you would share with christians who do consider Christ as a transforming power in their lives, for the better not for the worse. Sort of a mean to become a better version of themselves, here and now.


Good question. My best answer is that trying to live by the teachings and example of Jesus has had a positive transformational influence on my life, and that my congregation provides me with a sense of belonging to a community of like-minded people who are committed to ideals like peace, compassion, and social justice. But is that enough? Am I maintaining my church membership only to retain the right to identify myself as Christian? IMO, again, you may be concerned that you find yourself not "fitting in" any christian community. The reality that is that our communities do not have the exclusivity to pursue ideals such as "peace, compassion and social justice". There are many individuals who do not depend on any organized communities to live accordingly to such ideals.

Is not the important thing for you to still experience a betterment of whom you are thru your current beliefs and act them out even as if you may have to do it "freelance"? Is not the degree of willingness you have to exercise compassion, generosity, justice and equal treatment of all to bring you full contentment? Especialy as you may see how your own willingness will influence others towards the same practises.


Now I see in the church newsletter that Bishop Shelby Spong has been scheduled to speak here in May. I'm sure most TWebbers know Spong, but if not, he's a retired Episcopal bishop who is as skeptical of orthodox Christian doctrine as I am. He describes himself as a nontheist. But he still professes to love the church he served for his entire professional life. He'll look you in the eye and say "Jesus is my Lord." So here's a guy who has dealt with the same issues I have and has decided he's still a Christian.

My advice is that you form your own opinion on Spong. Try not to depend on any pre digested opinion presented here. I am currently reading "Here I stand" which I recommend you read to get a better insight as to which factors and "forces" compelled him to become such a reformative element in the body of Christ.(it is always enlightening to read a biography).


It's easy to understand Bishop Spong's refusal to abandon the church and the Christian label when you consider that to do so he would almost have to look at his whole career as a waste of time! But what about me? I'm no priest. I wasn't even a regular church-goer until about five years ago. And I was THIS CLOSE to deciding that I am a member of what Spong calls the Christian Alumni Assocation. Now I've put the whole shebang back into the UNRESOLVED file.

So --- what are your thoughts on Bishop Spong and me? Do we deserve the right to think of ourselves as Christians? Why should we bother?

gb Clearly, Spong's burden has been his" struggle for a christianity of integrity, love and equality". The man has been pursuing a specific mission of reformative visions for the church itself. Do you find yourself motivated to transform christianity? An as insider while you embrace conditional beliefs..... as an outsider, not much of a claim to even acknowlege christian theology as something for you to be "bothered about". I am just being honest here.

[Sparko]

I moved this thread to General Theistics since there are nontheists participating in it and we didn't catch that until 4 pages had passed.

Just a reminder, the Unorthodox Theology area is for thiests only.

[Febble]

=
Hey, as I review this post, it's beginning to look like I've been doing some desperate clinging myself. Otherwise, why would I allow the scheduling of Spong's visit as an excuse to postpone my exit from the church?

gb

Another clinger here! Except that I've been clinging for so long, it's come to seem like quite a comfortable position. Perhaps I'm really a bat.

I enjoyed your post. I've been thinking along some parallel lines. I work in the field of cognitive neuroscience, which poses some interesting questions regarding the nature of knowledge and belief.

Here's a slightly edited version of something I posted to the Infidels recently. I had been trying to express the idea that as far as I am concerned, "God" is something I postulate as a key component of the mental model I have regarding the way I relate to the rest of the universe.


So, OK, I'll take the bull by the horns and try and say what it is that makes me describe myself as a Christian theist.

I didn't actually say that God was a mental model - I said I had a mental model that included something I call God. Actually, all I have for anything is a mental model, including evolution, of course. So the issue isn't whether God is a mental model or not, but what kind of mental model something called God might be part of.

God fits into my model of moral responsibility - of free will. As I've said upthread, I do not consider that "free will" is something for which there is (or can be) objective evidence. I think our behaviour can probably be expressed by an equation something like this:


behaviour = f(inherited neural architecture) + f(developmental factors] + f(stuff that life threw at you) + f(stuff that life is throwing at you now) + f(some kind of quantum uncertainty).

or it could be expressed by this:



behaviour = f(inherited neural architecture) + f(developmental factors] + f(stuff that life threw at you) + f(stuff that life is throwing at you now) + f(some kind of quantum uncertainty) + f(W).

where W is something like Will (or it could of course be woo). And there is no way, nor can there be a way, in which we could ever know whether that last term is actually necessary. Neuroscience can certainly account for our behaviour, in principle at least, in terms of the other stuff.

But it isn't of course the way we actually perceive our own intentions and behaviour. We have such a strong impression that we ourselves exist that psychologists and neuroscientists end up tying themselves in knots, talking about "top down" and "bottom up" attentional processes, and trying not to talk about the Elephant in the Room, which is not in fact an Elephant but a little homunculus that is implicit in the model.

Which makes it a bad model for neuroscience, and one that has been overtaken of late by "salience" models of attention in which neural representations of ideas compete for dominance by means of what are essentially evolutionary algorithms.

But if the implicit homunculus is an embarassment for neuroscience it remains a useful model for living. We evolved (I assume) with a brain capable of the powerful illusion (if illusion it be) that we exist. My brain would work perfectly well without "me" in it, I presume - I'm not in yours, and yours seems to work fine without me in it. Trying even to think about oneself without a word for whatever that homunculus-for-which-there-is-no-evidence is pretty well impossible (well beyond my own capacity, anyway).


A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html


So I suggest that postulating factor W is, at the minimum, useable, for life if not for neuroscience as it can be considered to act at the point at which the "I" that is me, the homunculus, my will, my soul, the woo, whatever, can put a thumb on the scales and tip the decision one way or another.

And there we could stop, with the notion that W may or may not be an illusion, but whether or not it is, it's a powerful one, and a useful one to play host to, as it allows us to internalise our locus of control, and to accept moral responsibility for what we do.

But we don't have to stop there, and I don't. I consider that the moral responsibility aspect of W is key, because, if we do not posit the existence of W, then ultimately, while our actions may be helpful or harmful, in the way that the actions of bacteria may be helpful or harmful, they have no actual moral value. Whereas if we do, then by definition, we regard ourselves as moral beings.

And you can see where I might be going with this - by positing W we posit the existence of the dreaded concept of "sin". "Original sin" even. Which doesn't happen to be a word I'm that keen on - way too much ugly baggage - I'm happier with terms like "moral responsibility" or "accountability", but the fact is that they translate pretty easily into conventional religious terminology.

Anyway - in my "model" (which is pretty well straight from Aquinas, so it has a fairly orthodox heritage), "W" is good. Failure to invoke W (let it assume a small or zero value in the equation) is neutral. Suppressing W is bad. And "W" is what I call God.

So that's the third person of the Trinity in place, just about.

The first person is relatively easy too - Once I've posited W as an extra parameter in my behavioural model, I see no problem in positing W as an extra parameter in my model of the entire universe. Our minds work by means of evolutionary algorithms. So does the whole of biology. So does the entire universe. Once I've posited W, the rot has set in (if you see it as rot, which of course I don't) and W can be the "I" of the entire universe, of which I am merely a thought.

OK, one more to go:

The above is why I call myself a theist - I call myself a Christian theist, because I like Jesus. It's the bit I am least sure of, and I'm certainly not going to the stake for the virgin birth, which seems quite unnecessary in modern terms, and seems much more likely to have been a bit of clumsy inference by some well-meaning story teller to indicate the identity of Jesus with God. But in John's gospel, at least, Jesus is reported as saying that there is nothing blasphemous in that, and quotes a psalm that says "you are gods". Which is just fine, according to my W model. And I am happy to regard Jesus as an example of a human being in whom W was fully expressed. And therefore to take seriously his message that love is what God is about.

So there you are. It's a work in progress, and always will be. But it's enough to let me call myself a theist, and a Christian theist in particular. If it crumbles I'll let you know.

But as far as I am concerned, it does not conflict with science (although it is not, and cannot, be supported by it) and it is useable. I use it.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4120532#post4120532

[One Bad Pig]

Sorry, i meant to quote "casting pearls before the swine", and where some swine may have enough "common sense" not to solicit foundations for the Christian Faith.

I appreciate the apology, but now I'm really confused. I'm having trouble parsing your sentence.

[Steve Petermann]

Hi gd,

While I agree with many of the criticisms that Spong lodges against Christianity, I don't think they necessarily have to lead to non-theism. It seems that for Spong if a classic theism won't work, then theism has to be abandoned altogether. This is not necessariy so. There is a growing trend in theology towards a panentheism (note the "e"). This view can be formulated many ways, but because of the different ontologies offered, supernatualism doesn't need to be posited and the concept of a personal God retained. The great theologian Paul Tillich offered his version in his "Systematic Theology" but it's a difficult read. Marcus Borg is also a proponent panentheism and has written a wonderful book "The Heart of Christianity" where instead of merely rejecting claims about Jesus out of hand, he sees them as metaphors that have a deep meaning about God and our relationship to God. Also there is process theology expounded by theologians like John Cobb, David Ray Griffin and Philip Clayton where there is no supernaturalism but a personal God is retained. I'm a fan of the event model of process thought but not its theology of God. However, if you are inclined there are sophisticated theologies out there that can offer alternatives to what I would consider Spong's stark approach.

[Zeluvia]

Another clinger here! Except that I've been clinging for so long, it's come to seem like quite a comfortable position. Perhaps I'm really a bat.

I enjoyed your post. I've been thinking along some parallel lines. I work in the field of cognitive neuroscience, which poses some interesting questions regarding the nature of knowledge and belief.

Here's a slightly edited version of something I posted to the Infidels recently. I had been trying to express the idea that as far as I am concerned, "God" is something I postulate as a key component of the mental model I have regarding the way I relate to the rest of the universe.



http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4120532#post4120532

This is really interesting to me.

I have been playing around with identifying the actual human uses of the concept of god.

As supreme alpha leader, it allows cooperation instead of competition.

As example of perfection, it gives goals for behavior.

Of course, there are other uses for the concept of god that are not so pleasant.

[shunyadragon]

I'm new to TWeb. I hope this is the appropriate forum for this discussion.

I've been wrestling with my own personal theology and self-identity. After finally rejecting fundamentalism several years ago I joined a very liberal UCC congregation. Now after a lot of study, reading, and thoughtful consideration I find myself at another turning point. I've examined and rejected so many orthodox Christian doctrines including the virgin birth, the miracles attributed to Jesus, his substitutionary atonement, physical resurrection, and imminent return, and the trinity. I've also abandoned the personal (anthropomorphic) concept of God. And I hear the same challenge from orthodox Christians and atheists: Why continue to call myself a Christian?

Good question. My best answer is that trying to live by the teachings and example of Jesus has had a positive transformational influence on my life, and that my congregation provides me with a sense of belonging to a community of like-minded people who are committed to ideals like peace, compassion, and social justice. But is that enough? Am I maintaining my church membership only to retain the right to identify myself as Christian?

Now I see in the church newsletter that Bishop Shelby Spong has been scheduled to speak here in May. I'm sure most TWebbers know Spong, but if not, he's a retired Episcopal bishop who is as skeptical of orthodox Christian doctrine as I am. He describes himself as a nontheist. But he still professes to love the church he served for his entire professional life. He'll look you in the eye and say "Jesus is my Lord." So here's a guy who has dealt with the same issues I have and has decided he's still a Christian.

It's easy to understand Bishop Spong's refusal to abandon the church and the Christian label when you consider that to do so he would almost have to look at his whole career as a waste of time! But what about me? I'm no priest. I wasn't even a regular church-goer until about five years ago. And I was THIS CLOSE to deciding that I am a member of what Spong calls the Christian Alumni Assocation. Now I've put the whole shebang back into the UNRESOLVED file.

So --- what are your thoughts on Bishop Spong and me? Do we deserve the right to think of ourselves as Christians? Why should we bother?

gb

I hear this frequently among the more liberal Episcopalian Churches, but it does not jive with the beliefs and doctrines of the Episcopalian Church of which they are a part of. There are more schisms and divisions in the winds over this contradictory liberal theology. It offers no hope for a unifying vision for the world.

I describe this view as comfort seeking within convenient socially acceptable labels, without considering the consequences of these labels and the belief system they represent.
Allen Watts took this road experimenitng with Buddhist/Taoist world views and a few drugs, but ultimated was rejected by both sides of the fence.

I grew up in the Roman Church with the optimistic modern view of a changing church and eccumenical movement of the 1950s and 60s. and was somewhat naively hopeful until I read
the fine print of the Vatican II documents. Change was not in the cards.

I am a Baha'i, whether right or wrong (Which I fully admit in the humble human point of view.), because it unequivacally teaches a unifid vision of a modern world without siting on a fence getting splinters in my butt in a church torn by allegiance to an ancient document that they cut and paste in a Jeffersonian manner to make it comfortable for their own beliefs.

The only other alternatives I found remotely relavent to the modern world are the Unitarians, and a Buddhist/Taoist belief, but neither of these offered a message of unity that included the other religions.

An interesting challenge to the Baha'i vision is how do you consider these ancient religions in one unifying worldview. First, aknowledge there spiritual heritage as having a legitamate place in the spiritual heratage of all humanity. Second, place them where they belong, in the past in their place and time and you do not try and pick and choice to make one or the other fit the modern world. Second, you accept that human interests corrupt and form religion around their own cultural world view, which only fits there. Third, you acknowledge the common foundations of all religions in the teaching that there is a 'Source' from which all things come from and ultimately return. You basically have to recognize that human labels for God are inherently limited, and the 'Source', some call God, is neither Theist, Deist, Monist, Pantheist, Thouist, or whateverist, the Source is simply the source, ad God is just a three letter word.

[Impresario]

My post a few steps back may have been lost or passed over.

IMO, Jesus would slap the Ex-Bishop Spong in the face like a Sadduccee fool, and any more here who deny the physical resurrection.

I repeat for the sake of emphasis:

Consider that the Sadducees used that one against the Resurrection—Matthew 22:23 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?go=Go&q=Matthew+22%3A23)–34:

23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.

24 ‘Teacher,‘ they said, ‘Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.

25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.

27 Finally, the woman died.

28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?‘
Note that they tried to refute the Resurrection by showing that it leads to the absurd conclusion that in this hypothetical situation the woman would not know whose wife she is. Jesus’ answer shows the masterful logic of the Logos of God.

29 Jesus replied, ‘You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
Note that Jesus points out that the starting presuppositions are wrong—the Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch as Scripture, while Jesus, like the Pharisees, accepted the same books as the Protestant Old Testament.

If they had not been ignorant of what the Scriptures were, they would have realised that Scriptures like Dan. 12:2 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=dan+12:2&version=NIV&showfn=on) clearly teach the Resurrection.

Then Jesus notes that if a conclusion of a valid argument is false, then it is enough for only one of the premises to be false. The false premise in the Sadducees’ argument was not the resurrection, but that people would be married in heaven:

30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
However, refuting any number of arguments against a position does not in itself prove that position. So Jesus proved His own position, on the Sadducees’ own terms, using Scripture they accepted:

Geez, where did the Ex-Bishop and heretic Spong 9Spawn of Sadducee) come from?

Matthew 22 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?go=Go&q=Matthew+22):

31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you,

32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.‘

33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together.

[Impresario]

I appreciate the apology, but now I'm really confused. I'm having trouble parsing your sentence.

O.K., and could the following help?

Cast pearls before swine


Meaning:

Offer or show something valuable, good, or beautiful to someone who does not understand its value.

If you are casting pearls before swine, you are wasting your time showing or offering something very helpful or valuable to someone who does not understand or appreciate it.

Example:

Don't bother explaining Shakespeare to Bob. It would be like casting pearls before swine.

Tom wouldn't listen to Sarah's wise advice. She was just casting pearls before swine.

[gingerbreadman]

Hi gd,

There is a growing trend in theology towards a panentheism (note the "e"). This view can be formulated many ways, but because of the different ontologies offered, supernatualism doesn't need to be posited and the concept of a personal God retained. The great theologian Paul Tillich offered his version in his "Systematic Theology" but it's a difficult read. Marcus Borg is also a proponent panentheism and has written a wonderful book "The Heart of Christianity" ...

Except for the Bible, "The Heart of Christianity" is the most often re-read book on my shelf. And I agree about Tillich being a difficult read. Tried reading John A.T. Robinson, too. Slow going for a self-educated nonseminarian.

Please note that my user name has been changed from gdbailey to gingerbreadman. Apparently gdbailey was too similar to the name of a moderator so they asked me to pick a new one. Call me gb.

Double posting is not allowed on T-web debate areas. If you need to edit your post, left click on the right hand side of your user name and the edit post option will come up on the post.

[One Bad Pig]

O.K., and could the following help?

Cast pearls before swine


Meaning:

Offer or show something valuable, good, or beautiful to someone who does not understand its value.

If you are casting pearls before swine, you are wasting your time showing or offering something very helpful or valuable to someone who does not understand or appreciate it.

Example:

Don't bother explaining Shakespeare to Bob. It would be like casting pearls before swine.

Tom wouldn't listen to Sarah's wise advice. She was just casting pearls before swine.
I'm familiar with the phrase; it's the words you used with it that threw me off.

[Impresario]

I'm familiar with the phrase; it's the words you used with it that threw me off.

Sure, the stiff necked Jew threw me off too.

Isaiah 1:4

Ah, sinful nation,

a people loaded with guilt,

a brood of evildoers,

children given to corruption!

They have forsaken the LORD;

they have spurned the Holy One of Israel

and turned their backs on him.

[Griggsy]

Spong shows that faith, I just say so of credulity, has such a hold in its victims.He still takes Yeshua as his lord even though the latter has a dubious morality.
Yet, he gives very rational points to reject much of the Bible and accept humanist ethics.
Is his non-theistic god merely a metaphor?