Jesus For The Non-religious

[_Sam Harris]

Before I go out for the day.

One thought that comes to mind is whether or not Spong's works have any relevance today.

I think they do. Christianity over here is (other than in name only) very much dying on the vine.
Many can't relate to it in terms of the reality of their own culture and needs.

In this way I see Spong as trying to bridge the gap between today's scientific advances and what really is
a very antiquated and inaccessible culture such as is portrayed in the Bible.

His message, and hopefully the message of Jesus of Nazareth is still the same though in dynamic terms.
The core message of Jesus to love others and yourself and in so doing love God is the same.
Everything else is just fluff.

Just a few thoughts.

Mary

So true, Mary. And yes, Christianity is dying on the vine for those who cannot shut off their minds when they leave church on sunday, who cannot let the cog dis and spiritual superiority complexes get in the way of what they see. Some people actually want the important questions answered, and traditional fundamentalist Christianity cannot offer those questions in any way that empowers and stresses the importance of the rest of mankind.

[_ajax18]

I see a lot of truth in what Spong is saying. I think Mormonism has tried to address this in the idea of continuing revelation. Yet it's much more difficult to pull truth out of Mormonism now since what is said now by Church leaders has far more to do with politics than truth. To me there must have been a certain beauty and depth of explanation in the days of Joseph Smith that the modern Church sorely lacks. The only problem I see with moving on past old religion to a new one is that the old religion seemed to offer so much hope. What other religion offers a universal resurrection? To me death is a major issue, and a big reason why religion was ever invented in the first place. [/img]

[_richardMdBorn]

My new comments are in bold.

Richard We need to back up a level or two. Is there any sexual relationship that you consider wrong? Is there any sexual relationship forbidden in the Bible which is still forbidden? I assume that you would agree that rape is wrong. How about incest? If the prohibition on homosexuality is to be reinterpreted, how do you justify continuing the prohibition against incest. Can sons and mothers get married? How about the possibility of two or more women marrying
two or more men. If the world sets the agenda for the church, where does it end?

Roger I'm disappointed you chose to "...assume..." so much of what i might consider "wrong". To then surreptitiously relate that to suppositions and imaginings irrelevant to the specific, "homosexual relationships" seems a bit manipulative. Can you see that from my side? At the negotiating-table we might consider that "bad-faith-bargaing". Be that as it may, you've played your hand... Where to from here???

Richard My point is not that you believe in any of these things. Rather, it is that the attempt to make homosexuality consistent with biblical teaching does not derive from the Bible or some exciting biblical studies. Instead, there are homosexuals who want to have their practices blessed by the religious community. Thus, society gives the church the direction in which it should go. Once this process begins, where does it end? I’m not arguing here for an inerrant Bible; I’m arguing whether the Bible has any authority at all. The Nazis disliked the Gospel of John because it states that salvation is of the Jews. I assume that you would agree that the Christians under the Third Reich should not have submitted. Thus, there are times when the Church should resist the culture.

Roger Do you believe "Homosexual Relationships" to be evil, and leading those involved to Hell? "IF" so, can you substantiate that--other than from biblical text? How do you see the Homosexual community as a part of our greater society?

Richard. Yes, I do think they are evil. Perhaps you should read some of the articles by a friend of mine who is not an evangelical. It’s late, and I may find more articles of hers on the net tomorrow. the second one is a summary only.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/ma ... ip?id=7359
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft0001/ ... nberg.html

Here’s one under her maiden name (she didn’t like the changes the editor made).
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_q ... hools.html

[_Roger Morrison]

Richard, thanks for the refs. I read Faluty's book when it first came out. I know personally one who was having difficulties fitting-into the job market, a Professor actually, who could point to her work and say, "see, that's what i'm faced with!" Victims have always had victimizers. Their reality...and, fully justified by them. The challenge to the rest of us is to understand "their plight". And where possible apply principles of social/economic/political justice...

Richard: My point is...that the attempt to make homosexuality consistent with biblical teaching does not derive from the Bible or some exciting biblical studies. Instead, there are homosexuals who want to have their practices blessed by the religious community. Thus, society gives the church the direction in which it should go. Once this process begins, where does it end? I’m not arguing here for an inerrant Bible; I’m arguing whether the Bible has any authority at all. The Nazis disliked the Gospel of John because it states that salvation is of the Jews. I assume that you would agree that the Christians under the Third Reich should not have submitted. Thus, there are times when the Church should resist the culture.

To make "...homosexuality consistent with biblical teaching..." is not my purpose. Too many evils have been perpetrated in the name of "God"--slavery, genocide, prejudice... This is not saying "homosexuality" is evil, except in the eye of the beholder. As the afore mentioned 'evils' were seen to be 'righteous'-- in the eye-of-the-beholder.

I see no reason not to "bless" a monogamous, loving and caring relationship. Would you rather it be "cursed"? "...Bible...authority..." is simply a human construct to legitamize particular socio-theological edicts to influence human activity to conform to biblical/religious Establishment tradition. Not all bad. Not all good.

However, it behooves one, and all, to weigh such edicts against the "Two New Commandments" IMSCO. Then accept, reject or modify accordingly...

...there are times when the Church should resist the culture.

Yes! And times when it should not! Unfortunately, the Church has too often resisted social/cultural change to maintain their relationship with their benefactors, siting THE Bible as THEIR Authority to do so. I think this might be one of those times???

As usual 'fear' fuels their claims of being 'victimized' by the 'Progressives'. Who, they greatly fear, will destroy all that's moral and good if... Same old, same old. Yet Blacks can now sit and drink wherever they please; education is free; children MUST attend school; parents cannot beat their children; Gov & NGO agencies assist the poor; and yes being Homosexual does not exlude one from housing, education, the military, Church positions etc. etc...

Richard, i read your material. I appreciate the concerns expressed. However, i think them alarmist and fear mongering. IMSCO, when emotions, on both sides, give way to rational observation of both heteral & homo integration in the socio-economic scheme of things, there can be little but mutual benefit to everyone. Warm regards, Roger

[_richardMdBorn]

Hi Roger,

You asked me to comment about homosexuality apart from biblical texts. That's fine. For people who don't accept the Bible's authority, its assertions are obviously irrelevant. However, folks like Spong need to deal with it and they do a poor job in my opinion.

Let's take simply the issue of health. Do you think that homosexuality is neutral as far as health is concerned. Are gays more likely to be promiscuous?

Richard

[_richardMdBorn]

Before I go out for the day.

One thought that comes to mind is whether or not Spong's works have any relevance today.

I think they do. Christianity over here is (other than in name only) very much dying on the vine.
Many can't relate to it in terms of the reality of their own culture and needs.

In this way I see Spong as trying to bridge the gap between today's scientific advances and what really is
a very antiquated and inaccessible culture such as is portrayed in the Bible.

His message, and hopefully the message of Jesus of Nazareth is still the same though in dynamic terms.
The core message of Jesus to love others and yourself and in so doing love God is the same.
Everything else is just fluff.

Just a few thoughts.

Mary

Hi Mary,

I avoid citing numbers as a measure of success since large movements can die out. One and the truth are a majority in my opinion. However, Spong’s brand of Christianity is dying out so it can’t be answer from that perspective.. Where do you live?

One of my favorite preachers, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, was interviewed by the BBC in 1972:

In a continuation of the discussion with Joan Blakewell after the filming had concluded she confessed that this was a type of Christianity which she had never met before. All the clerics whom she had previously interviewed had been concerned to assure her that she was a Christian. ML-J was the first to tell her what she knew was the truth about herself.

Iain Murray, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith, 635.

Spong’s brand of Christianity is a dying fad.

[_Mary]

Hi Richard,

I live in Oxfordshire. When I say that 'christianity' is dying on the vine, I really need to be more specific.
What I am saying is that the orthodox version of christianity as we have it in terms of church liturgy and practice
makes christianity unappealing for many. A doctrine which speaks of leading only those who confess the name of Jesus
and blasts to hell every one else, is also not one that your average thinker today will take seriously.

Of course that's just my opinion on why christianity has become so inaccessible to many. Add to that the pomp and garb, and the
C of E and Catholic Churches use, and misuse I should say, of power and I think you have a good number of reasons why many are
put off.

Religion 'can' be the opiate of the people, and I think a lot don't want to be 'drugged' anymore into accepting anything just because God
says so.

Having said that, that doesn't mean that 'spirituality' is on the decrease nor good works, nor good ethics, but that people perhaps show it outside of organised belief systems?

Mary

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Roger,

You asked me to comment about homosexuality apart from biblical texts. That's fine. For people who don't accept the Bible's authority, its assertions are obviously irrelevant. However, folks like Spong need to deal with it and they do a poor job in my opinion.

Let's take simply the issue of health. Do you think that homosexuality is neutral as far as health is concerned. Are gays more likely to be promiscuous?

Richard

Hi Richard, good terms. Too often some folks have difficulty when biblical attachment is severed...

I'm not sure about "health-neutralty" even in other segments of society. Native Americans are prone to Diabetes... AIDS did have its beginning in the Gay community, as best we know. Would it have started, or not, some place else, is simply conjeture. Unfortunately initial indifference to HIV/AIDS by the greater community exacerbated the broblem.

As i'm sure you are aware, many religious types intoned it as a "Gay problem--not ours--and God's punishment..." How indefensible, short sighted, and immoral. Especially in a society that boasts itself "Christian"... As AIDS comes under control in both heteral and homo communities will "health" be an issue then?

"Promiscuity" is a problem in both communities. Are promiscuous Gays worse than promiscuous Straights? I don't think so. AND they don't make babies to be left in the care of a single-mom, when they move on...

Adult, pre-marital, unprotected heteral-sex is irresponsible. As it is in the Gay community. However, i don't think we should confine our thinking to sex. What the Gay community deserves, IMSCO, is the right to enjoy a relationship with the person of their choice, and to have the same social-securities as do heteral couples.

Statistically Gays are, generally speaking, in higher income brackets, and contribute skills and talents that enrich the lives of all... They make good neighbors, responsible citizens, and caring parents. They don't tend to violence and crime... Really, other than being different, what is so undesireable about them?? Have you associates, friends or family who are Gay or Lesbian?

"Spongism" :-) a fad?? Surely you must be joking? "New Christianity" in many forms, is opening the world to a Spirituality never experienced in the "Hell-fire" fear, and guilt "Old-Time" religions. Are you, or anyone, familiar with "Agape" in LA?

Spong is not an atheist, his personal relationship with Christ is as valid as anyone's. Just what is it in him that you detest? Warm regards, Roger

[_richardMdBorn]

Hi Richard,

I live in Oxfordshire. When I say that 'christianity' is dying on the vine, I really need to be more specific.
What I am saying is that the orthodox version of christianity as we have it in terms of church liturgy and practice
makes christianity unappealing for many. A doctrine which speaks of leading only those who confess the name of Jesus
and blasts to hell every one else, is also not one that your average thinker today will take seriously.

Of course that's just my opinion on why christianity has become so inaccessible to many. Add to that the pomp and garb, and the
C of E and Catholic Churches use, and misuse I should say, of power and I think you have a good number of reasons why many are
put off.

Religion 'can' be the opiate of the people, and I think a lot don't want to be 'drugged' anymore into accepting anything just because God
says so.

Having said that, that doesn't mean that 'spirituality' is on the decrease nor good works, nor good ethics, but that people perhaps show it outside of organised belief systems?

Mary

Hi Mary,

When I was at Cambridge in 1994, I learned from the Kings College Chapel that Christ was not a Christian and that a supposed Christian church did no use "in the year of our Lord (AD). I asked Prof. John Morrill, a RC, about the college chaplins and he said that most of the new ones believed in the resurrection. What a concept! I agree that religion in the UK is in a sad state. Prof David Bebbington said that church attendance in Scotland, which is the highest in the UK, is down.

Richard

[_Mary]

Richard, I think that's what Spong tries to address. Most people nowadays are far too savvy to buy into a global flood, or Adam and Eve, or why we have a rainbow! and all he is trying to do, is to say, (in my opinion) let's not take these things too literally.

Let's temper what we have in the blble, much of it culture( and some not very nice culture) from the standpoint of a particular set of writers, redactors and translators, all with their own belief systems,....with a bit of common sense in the light of what we know now about various belief systems in the ancient world, and in the light of what we know now (which okay isn't that much) about how the world works!!

Mary