DiscussMormonism.com

Pasted below is a section of an Open Letter, written by Spong, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican/Epistopalian Church world wide. I think what he says to him might well be said to a great number of sectarian leaders, and followers:

You continue to act as if quoting the Bible to undergird a dying prejudice is a legitimate tactic. It is in fact the last resort that religious people always use to validate "tradition" over change. The Bible was quoted to support the Divine Right of Kings in 1215, to oppose Galileo in the 17th century, to oppose Darwin in the 19th century, to support slavery and apartheid in the 19th and 20th centuries, to keep women from being educated, voting and being ordained in the 20th and 21st century. Today it is quoted to continue the oppression and rejection of homosexual people. The Bible has lost each of those battles. It will lose the present battle and you, my friend, will end up on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of morality and the wrong side of truth. It is a genuine tragedy that you, the most intellectually-gifted Archbishop of Canterbury in almost a century, have become so miserable a failure in so short a period of time.

You were appointed to lead, Rowan, not to capitulate to the hysterical anger of those who are locked in the past. For the sake of God and this Church, the time has come for you to do so. I hope you still have that capability.

Waddya'll think??? Warm regards, Roger

Sounds like Spong just gave the figurative middle finger to the hand that feeds him.

Is it not the duty of the religious leaders of the day to come down on the wrong side of such history?

moksha wrote:Is it not the duty of the religious leaders of the day to come down on the wrong side of such history?

Actually in most cases it's some of the religious leaders of the day vs. the other religious leaders of the day.

Dang!

I like Spong. Though I sometimes wonder how much he's going to strip spirituality in his attempt to purge it of the negative and destructive, I must say, the man has cajones. He speaks nothing but truth. Why people are still clinging to the Bible as if God wrote it with a quill pen is beyond me...

Anyone who thinks that Spong is a scholar would do well to review this thread:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1610

Spong Today we know that virgins do not conceive. In the 1st century Mediterranean world, however, where the mysteries of reproduction were not fully understood, the only way they could explain human greatness was to ascribe to the hero a supernatural heritage in which a divine being or presence acting upon a pure virgin produced a "god/man." Such stories were a dime a dozen in that world.

Richard Luke realized that virgins do not conceive apart from a miracle. Lk 1:34 “How can this be,” Mary asked the angel, “Since I am a virgin?” The New Testament teaches that the virgin conception was a miracle.

There are two accounts in the New Testament of Jesus’ birth. Spong claimed that “Today we know that virgins do not conceive”. Yet Luke shows that the ancients realized this too, apart from a miracle. If he can’t interpret two short passages correctly, how can we trust him on anything more extensive?

The Bible was quoted to support the Divine Right of Kings in 1215

Especially passages like 1 Sam 8:1-18. And the Puritans certainly quoted it when they opposed Charles the First.

to oppose Galileo in the 17th century

Especially Job 26:7 I think Ptolemy was quoted more than the Bible in this controversy.

to support slavery

Yes, especially by folks like Wilberforce.

to keep women from voting

Yes, especially by people like William Jennings Bryan.

Hi Richard, I did as you suggest and am no more, or less convinced that you are any more qualified to judge Spong's scholarship than is anyone else. You certainly attempt, and i respectfully suggest, fail, to discredit him. For obvious reasons.

Spong, along with an increasing number of others, is not a biblical literalist. And as such does not believe in "miracles'. While it appears you might. Am i correct in that you are a biblical literalist? And/or believe in "miracles"? To any degree? I'm in bold below:

richardMdBorn wrote:Anyone who thinks that Spong is a scholar would do well to review this thread:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1610

Spong Today we know that virgins do not conceive. In the 1st century Mediterranean world, however, where the mysteries of reproduction were not fully understood, the only way they could explain human greatness was to ascribe to the hero a supernatural heritage in which a divine being or presence acting upon a pure virgin produced a "god/man." Such stories were a dime a dozen in that world.

Richard Luke realized that virgins do not conceive apart from a miracle. Lk 1:34 “How can this be,” Mary asked the angel, “Since I am a virgin?” The New Testament teaches that the virgin conception was a miracle.

There are two accounts in the New Testament of Jesus’ birth. Spong claimed that “Today we know that virgins do not conceive”. Yet Luke shows that the ancients realized this too, apart from a miracle. If he can’t interpret two short passages correctly, how can we trust him on anything more extensive?

RM: Seems you fail to understand, accept the fact, that many do not accept the words of Luke as being anything but the utterance of a man of his time with the knowledge/understanding of his time. Not to his discredit. OTOH, to our discredit IF/WHEN taken litterally in our time--IMSCO.

The Bible was quoted to support the Divine Right of Kings in 1215

Especially passages like 1 Sam 8:1-18. And the Puritans certainly quoted it when they opposed Charles the First.

RM: Are you denying the "Divine Right of Kings" was not garnerned from "God's word"? Did Cromwell object to that interpretation, or claim Charles was not in sync with "God" and thus not following his divine responsibility?

to oppose Galileo in the 17th century

Especially Job 26:7 I think Ptolemy was quoted more than the Bible in this controversy.

to support slavery

Yes, especially by folks like Wilberforce.

RM: Again, you seem to deny the reality that the Bible has been used to establish attitudes and practices, such as slavery, suppression of women, condemning unions, etc... that have been archaic and disingenuous... Of course there have been exceptions, such as Wilberforce. We might, "thank "God" for that reality." As well we might "thank "God" for Spong's enlightenment!" ;-)

to keep women from voting

Yes, especially by people like William Jennings Bryan.

RM: Another exception, i'm sure you'll agree. Good that the exceptional folks are eventually vindicated as time proves them correct, to some degree. As it will Spong in the things in which he is correct. Time too, will prove each of us, to both our credit & discredit...

Do you have any comments about the thread that triggered this response? Other than the above? Warm regards, Roger

Roger Morrison wrote:Pasted below is a section of an Open Letter, written by Spong, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican/Epistopalian Church world wide. I think what he says to him might well be said to a great number of sectarian leaders, and followers:

You continue to act as if quoting the Bible to undergird a dying prejudice is a legitimate tactic. It is in fact the last resort that religious people always use to validate "tradition" over change. The Bible was quoted to support the Divine Right of Kings in 1215, to oppose Galileo in the 17th century, to oppose Darwin in the 19th century, to support slavery and apartheid in the 19th and 20th centuries, to keep women from being educated, voting and being ordained in the 20th and 21st century. Today it is quoted to continue the oppression and rejection of homosexual people. The Bible has lost each of those battles. It will lose the present battle and you, my friend, will end up on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of morality and the wrong side of truth. It is a genuine tragedy that you, the most intellectually-gifted Archbishop of Canterbury in almost a century, have become so miserable a failure in so short a period of time.

You were appointed to lead, Rowan, not to capitulate to the hysterical anger of those who are locked in the past. For the sake of God and this Church, the time has come for you to do so. I hope you still have that capability.

Waddya'll think??? Warm regards, Roger

Roger,

Your title: Misuse of “Scripture” is misleading to your point (I think).

Your point seems to be that biblical scripture has been used at different times to support different positions (political, moral, etc.). If that is your point, it begs the question of just what right use is or would have been of biblical scripture.

You appear to agree with the statement which you quote: “You (Archbishop of Canterbury) continue to act as if quoting the Bible to undergird a dying prejudice is a legitimate tactic. It is in fact the last resort that religious people always use to validate "tradition" over change.”

Historically, as far back as we wish to find interpretations for biblical scripts, those interpretations have been used for political, moral, etc. purposes.

Why was that a “misuse” any more than some use today?

The entire Bible is a composite construction of more writers than we can name or for which we can account. The many obvious contradictions were written by different individuals under the auspices of different political power. And we have the many translations which seem to have no end as years advance.

The various uses were for purposes deemed necessary or correct by the power structures which use them. As the religion became more organized, Christianity used scripture to control and convert. Kings used scripture to support the divine right. As well, the Bible was used for the other things listed in your letter-quote.

It would be difficult to argue that the Bible was not used and is not still being used for purposes of special interests.

Your title implies there is a correct use. What’s that?

How is the correct use determined?
Who or what group makes determination of correct use?

Roger, I "think" I should like to see your affirmative argument for correct use.

I'm skeptical that it will be any more than another addition to the many arguments throughout the history of the religion. That could be said for anyone else who wishes to attempt a "new" interpretation and claim that it is correct.

JAK

Hi Roger. My new comments are in bold.

Hi Richard, I did as you suggest and am no more, or less convinced that you are any more qualified to judge Spong's scholarship than is anyone else. You certainly attempt, and I respectfully suggest, fail, to discredit him. For obvious reasons.

Spong, along with an increasing number of others, is not a biblical literalist.

Please define literalist.

And as such does not believe in "miracles'. While it appears you might. Am I correct in that you are a biblical literalist? And/or believe in "miracles"?

I need your definition of literalist, as mentioned above. I believe that the biblical miracles occurred.

To any degree?

I'm in bold below:

richardMdBorn wrote:
Anyone who thinks that Spong is a scholar would do well to review this thread:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1610

Quote:
Spong Today we know that virgins do not conceive. In the 1st century Mediterranean world, however, where the mysteries of reproduction were not fully understood, the only way they could explain human greatness was to ascribe to the hero a supernatural heritage in which a divine being or presence acting upon a pure virgin produced a "god/man." Such stories were a dime a dozen in that world.

Quote:
Richard Luke realized that virgins do not conceive apart from a miracle. Lk 1:34 “How can this be,” Mary asked the angel, “Since I am a virgin?” The New Testament teaches that the virgin conception was a miracle.

There are two accounts in the New Testament of Jesus’ birth. Spong claimed that “Today we know that virgins do not conceive”. Yet Luke shows that the ancients realized this too, apart from a miracle. If he can’t interpret two short passages correctly, how can we trust him on anything more extensive?

RM: Seems you fail to understand, accept the fact, that many do not accept the words of Luke as being anything but the utterance of a man of his time with the knowledge/understanding of his time. Not to his discredit. OTOH, to our discredit IF/WHEN taken litterally in our time--IMSCO.

We’ve been through this before, but I’m surprised that you don’t get my point. Literalism is not always the issue! Spong asserts that, “today, we know that virgins do not conceive". I agree with his statement apart from a miracle. Spong appears to believe that these types of miracles CANNOT occur. I disagree with folks such as Hume here. The Luke passage shows that he also knew that virgins do not conceive apart from a miracle. “How can this be,” Mary asked the angel, “Since I am a virgin?” If a person asserts that passage A does not teach B, and the passage clearly teaches it, the question of literalism does not arise. Spong asserts for the biblical authors, ”the mysteries of reproduction were not fully understood”. Well, Luke clearly understood that virgins did not ordinarily conceive.

Quote:
The Bible was quoted to support the Divine Right of Kings in 1215

Especially passages like 1 Sam 8:1-18. And the Puritans certainly quoted it when they opposed Charles the First.

RM: Are you denying the "Divine Right of Kings" was not garnerned from "God's word"? Did Cromwell object to that interpretation, or claim Charles was not in sync with "God" and thus not following his divine responsibility?

James the First’s comment was “no bishop, no king”. He understood that certain religious groups, such as the Presbyterians of his native Scotland, had interpretations of the Bible which threatened the divine right of kings. Authorities used the scriptures in favor of the authority of the Davidic kingship as evidence for the Divine Right of kings. I Sam. 8 shows that God gave the Israelites a king because of their lack of faith in him.

Quote:
to oppose Galileo in the 17th century

Especially Job 26:7 I think Ptolemy was quoted more than the Bible in this controversy.

Quote:
to support slavery

Yes, especially by folks like Wilberforce.

RM: Again, you seem to deny the reality that the Bible has been used to establish attitudes and practices, such as slavery, suppression of women, condemning unions, etc... that have been archaic and disingenuous... Of course there have been exceptions, such as Wilberforce. We might, "thank "God" for that reality." As well we might "thank "God" for Spong's enlightenment!" ;-)

Again, if the Bible is used to argue both A and Not A, and A prevails, how can you use that to say that the Bible was overturned? This is the case only if the Not A position is BETTER supported in the Bible. But Spong has not proven this.

Quote:
to keep women from voting

Yes, especially by people like William Jennings Bryan.

RM: Another exception, I'm sure you'll agree. Good that the exceptional folks are eventually vindicated as time proves them correct, to some degree. As it will Spong in the things in which he is correct. Time too, will prove each of us, to both our credit & discredit...

Women had the right to vote nowhere in the world 300 years ago. Representative democracies first arose in countries with majority Christian populations. IThey did not arise in Islam, Hinduism, etc. Spong likes representative democracy. Yet he attacks Christianity as if it opposed representative democracy (I’m generalizing from women voting and the divine right of kings to representative democracy).

Hi Richard, thanks for your patience... Mine is wearing thin :-) OK, this time i'm italics:

richardMdBorn wrote:Hi Roger. My new comments are in bold.

Hi Richard, I did as you suggest and am no more, or less convinced that you are any more qualified to judge Spong's scholarship than is anyone else. You certainly attempt, and I respectfully suggest, fail, to discredit him. For obvious reasons.

Spong, along with an increasing number of others, is not a biblical literalist.

Please define literalist.

RM: From Google: Dictionary Options Tips
Definition of Link to this definition of literal
"literalist" Spelling corrected
1. [a] being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something; "her actual motive"; "a literal solitude like a desert"- G.K.Chesterton; "a genuine dilemma". More...

2. [a] without interpretation or embellishment; "a literal translation of the scene before him". More...

3. [n] a mistake in printed matter resulting from mechanical failures of some kind. More...

4. [a] (of a translation) corresponding word for word with the original; "literal translation of the article"; "an awkward word-for-word translation". More...

5. [a] limited to the explicit meaning of a word or text; "a literal translation". More...

6. [a] of the clearest kind; usually used for emphasis; "it's the literal truth"; "a matter of investment, pure and simple". More...

7. [a] lacking stylistic embellishment; "a literal description"; "wrote good but plain prose"; "a plain unadorned account of the coronation"; "a forthright unembellished style".

Strangely they didn't have "literalist" so here's from Thorndyke: "person who adheres to the exact literal meaning..."


And as such does not believe in "miracles'. While it appears you might. Am I correct in that you are a biblical literalist? And/or believe in "miracles"?

I need your definition of literalist, as mentioned above. I believe that the biblical miracles occurred.

RM: I hope the above satisfies you? Do you "believe" the Genesis creation story? The Fall of Adam? Adam & Eve evicted from the 'Garden'?

To any degree?

I'm in bold below:

richardMdBorn wrote:
Anyone who thinks that Spong is a scholar would do well to review this thread:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1610

Quote:
Spong Today we know that virgins do not conceive. In the 1st century Mediterranean world, however, where the mysteries of reproduction were not fully understood, the only way they could explain human greatness was to ascribe to the hero a supernatural heritage in which a divine being or presence acting upon a pure virgin produced a "god/man." Such stories were a dime a dozen in that world.

Quote:
Richard Luke realized that virgins do not conceive apart from a miracle. Lk 1:34 “How can this be,” Mary asked the angel, “Since I am a virgin?” The New Testament teaches that the virgin conception was a miracle.

There are two accounts in the New Testament of Jesus’ birth. Spong claimed that “Today we know that virgins do not conceive”. Yet Luke shows that the ancients realized this too, apart from a miracle. If he can’t interpret two short passages correctly, how can we trust him on anything more extensive?

RM: Seems you fail to understand, accept the fact, that many do not accept the words of Luke as being anything but the utterance of a man of his time with the knowledge/understanding of his time. Not to his discredit. OTOH, to our discredit IF/WHEN taken litterally in our time--IMSCO.

We’ve been through this before, but I’m surprised that you don’t get my point. Literalism is not always the issue! Spong asserts that, “today, we know that virgins do not conceive". I agree with his statement apart from a miracle. Spong appears to believe that these types of miracles CANNOT occur. I disagree with folks such as Hume here. The Luke passage shows that he also knew that virgins do not conceive apart from a miracle. “How can this be,” Mary asked the angel, “Since I am a virgin?” If a person asserts that passage A does not teach B, and the passage clearly teaches it, the question of literalism does not arise. Spong asserts for the biblical authors, ”the mysteries of reproduction were not fully understood”. Well, Luke clearly understood that virgins did not ordinarily conceive.

RM: BUT, Luke went beyond his knowledge and accepted the idea of a miraculous, virgin birth. Now if i understand You, you take literally the virgin birth story as told in the birth myth. Am i correct in that?

Quote:
The Bible was quoted to support the Divine Right of Kings in 1215

Especially passages like 1 Sam 8:1-18. And the Puritans certainly quoted it when they opposed Charles the First.

RM: Are you denying the "Divine Right of Kings" was not garnerned from "God's word"? Did Cromwell object to that interpretation, or claim Charles was not in sync with "God" and thus not following his divine responsibility?

James the First’s comment was “no bishop, no king”. He understood that certain religious groups, such as the Presbyterians of his native Scotland, had interpretations of the Bible which threatened the divine right of kings. Authorities used the scriptures in favor of the authority of the Davidic kingship as evidence for the Divine Right of kings. I Sam. 8 shows that God gave the Israelites a king because of their lack of faith in him.

Quote:
to oppose Galileo in the 17th century

Especially Job 26:7 I think Ptolemy was quoted more than the Bible in this controversy.

Quote:
to support slavery

Yes, especially by folks like Wilberforce.

RM: Again, you seem to deny the reality that the Bible has been used to establish attitudes and practices, such as slavery, suppression of women, condemning unions, etc... that have been archaic and disingenuous... Of course there have been exceptions, such as Wilberforce. We might, "thank "God" for that reality." As well we might "thank "God" for Spong's enlightenment!" ;-)

Again, if the Bible is used to argue both A and Not A, and A prevails, how can you use that to say that the Bible was overturned? This is the case only if the Not A position is BETTER supported in the Bible. But Spong has not proven this.

Quote:
to keep women from voting

Yes, especially by people like William Jennings Bryan.

RM: Another exception, I'm sure you'll agree. Good that the exceptional folks are eventually vindicated as time proves them correct, to some degree. As it will Spong in the things in which he is correct. Time too, will prove each of us, to both our credit & discredit...

Women had the right to vote nowhere in the world 300 years ago. Representative democracies first arose in countries with majority Christian populations. IThey did not arise in Islam, Hinduism, etc. Spong likes representative democracy. Yet he attacks Christianity as if it opposed representative democracy (I’m generalizing from women voting and the divine right of kings to representative democracy).

Richard i think you might be attempting some trickery hera :-0 by referring the the old "Literalist thread" to this "Misuse of Scripture thread". Your idea being to discredit Spong's "Scholarship".

In which you are not doing well, IMSCO that is...

Pasted below is my opening post here:

Misuse of "Scripture"
Pasted below is a section of an Open Letter, written by Spong, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican/Epistopalian Church world wide. I think what he says to him might well be said to a great number of sectarian leaders, and followers:

You continue to act as if quoting the Bible to undergird a dying prejudice is a legitimate tactic. It is in fact the last resort that religious people always use to validate "tradition" over change. The Bible was quoted to support the Divine Right of Kings in 1215, to oppose Galileo in the 17th century, to oppose Darwin in the 19th century, to support slavery and apartheid in the 19th and 20th centuries, to keep women from being educated, voting and being ordained in the 20th and 21st century. Today it is quoted to continue the oppression and rejection of homosexual people. The Bible has lost each of those battles. It will lose the present battle and you, my friend, will end up on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of morality and the wrong side of truth. It is a genuine tragedy that you, the most intellectually-gifted Archbishop of Canterbury in almost a century, have become so miserable a failure in so short a period of time.

You were appointed to lead, Rowan, not to capitulate to the hysterical anger of those who are locked in the past. For the sake of God and this Church, the time has come for you to do so. I hope you still have that capability.

Waddya'll think??? (About Spong's critique of the "Misuse of Scripture") Warm regards, Roger

(UL just added for clarity:-)

Here Spong is accusing Rowan ???? the Archbishop, of "misusing scripture" to justify his injustice, so-to-speak, a common practice throughout history. It appears you do not think much of Spong, or his points of biblical influence being misused, simply because in your opinion he is not a 'good' scholar. There are many who disagree with you. But that's OK... He is being read and in his way is leading people out of the darkness of biblical--"God's word"--literalism...

Warm regards, Roger