DiscussMormonism.com

Hi All, pasted below is Spong's answer to questions re the make up of Christistian mythology:

Every religious system is layered over ancient roots. Christianity is no different. That is why anyone who literalizes the Jesus story or the Bible is revealing little more than profound ignorance. That is also why it is my experience that studying the Christian faith requires a lifetime. None of these things, however, distorts the basic Christian message that God calls us to live, to love and to be.

Waddaya'll think? Must it be taken literally to be efficacious in mortality? Nothing more important than mortal existance, right? Warm regards, Roger

Roger Morrison wrote:Hi All, pasted below is Spong's answer to questions re the make up of Christistian mythology:

Every religious system is layered over ancient roots. Christianity is no different. That is why anyone who literalizes the Jesus story or the Bible is revealing little more than profound ignorance. That is also why it is my experience that studying the Christian faith requires a lifetime. None of these things, however, distorts the basic Christian message that God calls us to live, to love and to be.

Waddaya'll think? Must it be taken literally to be efficacious in mortality? Nothing more important than mortal existance, right? Warm regards, Roger

The Spong statement is redundant.

Quote Spong:
Every religious system is layered over ancient roots. Christianity is no different. That is why anyone who literalizes the Jesus story or the Bible is revealing little more than profound ignorance. That is also why it is my experience that studying the Christian faith requires a lifetime. None of these things, however, distorts the basic Christian message that God calls us to live, to love and to be.
--------------------------

It’s a statement of the obvious (bold type added).

Christianity is multiple “religious system(s).”

No credibility for claimed verbatim quotes written 30 to 110 years after the fact as is the case with claimed quotes of Jesus has been established. It's a claim of some religious pundits.

Second, there is no “basic Christian message...” If there were, we would observe a united, consistent declaration of a religion. No such thing exists. Multiple denominations, sects, and cults which call themselves Christian display evidence which contradicts the final sentence of the Spong quote. Spong is issuing religious dogma, not a statement of evidence-supported fact.

JAK

Hi JAK, you wrote:

Second, there is no “basic Christian message...” If there were, we would observe a united, consistent declaration of a religion. No such thing exists. Multiple denominations, sects, and cults which call themselves Christian display evidence which contradicts the final sentence of the Spong quote. Spong is issuing religious dogma, not a statement of evidence-supported fact.

JAK

Might you consider Christmas or Easter as, "...united, consistent declaration(s) of (the Christian) religion"? Practiced throughout its, "Multiple denominations, sects and cults..." those celebrations seem to indicate some unanimity in spite of other opinion and doctrine differences?

"Evidence-supported fact(s)" are difficult to come by amidst the mythology and legend. That doesn't seem to matter with believers, in general. Any thoughts as to their indifference re "evidence-supported facts"? Warm regards, Roger

Roger Morrison wrote:Hi JAK, you wrote:

Second, there is no “basic Christian message...” If there were, we would observe a united, consistent declaration of a religion. No such thing exists. Multiple denominations, sects, and cults which call themselves Christian display evidence which contradicts the final sentence of the Spong quote. Spong is issuing religious dogma, not a statement of evidence-supported fact.

JAK

Might you consider Christmas or Easter as, "...united, consistent declaration(s) of (the Christian) religion"? Practiced throughout its, "Multiple denominations, sects and cults..." those celebrations seem to indicate some unanimity in spite of other opinion and doctrine differences?

"Evidence-supported fact(s)" are difficult to come by amidst the mythology and legend. That doesn't seem to matter with believers, in general. Any thoughts as to their indifference re "evidence-supported facts"? Warm regards, Roger

Hi Roger,

The short answer is no to your references. Christians quarrel among themselves (different denominations, sects, and cults) about just what Christmas and Easter really mean. They also dispute just how various doctrines should be observed. Their “other opinion and doctrinal differences” are not exclusive to opinions and doctrinal differences regarding {appropriate} ways to address Christmas or Easter.

“Believers” tend to obfuscate differences particularly at Christmas. Even so, there are those who disdain giving of Christmas presents, the erection of a Christmas Tree, the commercialization of the season, etc.

Even so, some believers quarrel about just how Christmas should be observed and disdain particular practices of the past decades associated with Christmas.

In the context of the quoted item from Spong, there is no “basic Christian message...”

The “unanimity” (your term) is superficial as in the willing suspension of disbelief when one is enjoying a fairy tale. The specifics regarding various interpretations of the Christmas story lack consensus.

JAK

Does Spong he actually consider himself a Christian?

isn't the basis for Christian belief the fact that Christ died and then rose again?

Gazelam wrote:Does Spong he actually consider himself a Christian?

isn't the basis for Christian belief the fact that Christ died and then rose again?

Hi Gaz, i say yes, in our Romanized version. OTOH, recall, according to the story, while Jesus lived, 1,000's followed, listened to him, and i suspect attempted to conform to his teachings. I think they could be considered "Christians"?? That was before the event of his death and/or the "resurection".

Why, after his death has it seemed to be more important to believe, "the fact that Christ died and then rose again", than to embrace His teachings--while alive--to the 1,000's of how to live by following His advocacy? "The two new commandments"...

It seems, to many "Christians", that Jesus' 'death' trumped his 'life'. Not so to this one (me). His vision of humanity, at peace in sufficiency, will never be realized as long as so-called-Christians, in their many sects and interpretations, prefer to prepare for the next life than to steward our "God" given resources justly in this one. In my very seriously considered opinion (IMVSCO ;-) Warm regards, Roger

Hi Roger: After going through life, with all its up and downs, you keep getting new lenses, books that are re read after twenty years have things leap off the page that did'New Testament even get a second thought on the first reading. I heard a rumor that mark twain said something like life would be so much better if you started at eighty and worked toward eighteen. I think a little intuitive luck is also present in understanding things as some get to see things early on where others learn by bumping into a cactus.


I think also a desire to understand the Jesus story is needed. Unfortunately, for me the Jesus story is tightly wound in Mormonism and as I don't trust Mormonism anymore the baby might need to go out with the bath water (maybe for just a few reasons and seasons); hopefully the Jesus story can come back with a different meaning with and a different lense.

regards,

thestyleguy

The reason is, is that if Christ was not resurrected, than he didn't redeem us from our transgressions either. And if Christ did not rise again, then neither will we, and the Atonement did not occur.

You know, the basis of Christian and Jewish belief.

The reason is, is that if Christ was not resurrected, than he didn't redeem us from our transgressions either. And if Christ did not rise again, then neither will we, and the Atonement did not occur.

Yes GAZ, that is correct. Is that too hard to accept as reality? I respectfully suggest, we, "...redeem ourselves from our transgressions..." by changing our behaviours/habits and moving on. Hopefully without too much injury to ourselves or others.

Jesus is said to have said, "...heal yourself..." He simply pointed to a better understanding of life, and how it best be lived to the advantage of ALL. Not exclusively to the advantage of "believers". Rather to the advantage of "doers", not "hearers only."

The "Atonement" story is nothing more than mythical legend to magnify the grandeur of Jesus to impressionable masses. Analogous to a child believing their favourite uncle can pull a coin from their ear. Not said disparagingly of the ancients, nor of the moderns who choose to believe so.

As for "...rising again..." Why is that so important to believe? Does believing that, in some way add to ones importance? Does believing we will "rise again" make us a better neighbor? A better parent/spouse/child/sibbling/citizen? Are "believers" more inclined to be peace-makers?

The truth is we are biodegrable material that leaves a legacy of some type behind, after we die. Whether good, bad or indifferent we are part of evolving humanity. WE link generations that in large part, or to some degree, we influence for better or worse.

That is the extent of our immortality. Which is why our children should be our number one priority. DOMacKay & HBLee made that quite clear. As have many others. The question is begged: Are children really prioritized as "best" in the grand scheme of things???

Guy, it's unfortunate that Jesus was abducted by religion. Socrates was lucky in that regard. But he too took his death willingly as payment for truth. But, "times-they-are-achanging". We can work it out in our own minds and act with our conscience as our IQs and EQs allow. I think we can rely on the premise that--all things work for good when we exercise reason with compassionate purpose. Paraphrased from my past :-) Warm regards, Roger