DiscussMormonism.com

What Spong says in his latest News Letter:

Did Jesus really raise the dead? Is it biologically possible to bring back to life one who has been dead for four days? Does one have to make this assertion in order to be a Christian as literal minded believers seem to believe? Fundamentalists say that since stories that make this claim are in the Bible and the Bible is the word of God, they have to be true. They argue that since Jesus was the incarnation of the holy God, he was capable of doing anything that God could do. It is a circular argument which depends, of course, on the acceptance of the first of the five fundamentals, which asserts that the Bible is indeed inerrant since God is its author. People living in the 21st century respond to these absurdities by saying if that is what Christianity is all about then they want no part of it. As universal education grows, more and more people begin to embrace what we know about the way the universe works and more and more educated people take leave of their religious heritage, choosing citizenship in what Harvard's Harvey Cox called "the secular city," but I call the "Church Alumni Association." That sterile choice, which requires a closed mind, has risen in our time, I believe, because Christians have literalized their time bound and time warped explanations of both the God experience and the Jesus experience. Modern people can no longer believe the literalizations, because to believe literally violates their minds giving them the choice of sacrificing their brains or their faith.

Waddaya think: brains or faith? Can there be both? ;-) Warm regards, Roger

What do I think? I think Spong is full of excrement.

Roger Morrison wrote:What Spong says in his latest News Letter:

Did Jesus really raise the dead? Is it biologically possible to bring back to life one who has been dead for four days? Does one have to make this assertion in order to be a Christian as literal minded believers seem to believe? Fundamentalists say that since stories that make this claim are in the Bible and the Bible is the word of God, they have to be true. They argue that since Jesus was the incarnation of the holy God, he was capable of doing anything that God could do. It is a circular argument which depends, of course, on the acceptance of the first of the five fundamentals, which asserts that the Bible is indeed inerrant since God is its author. People living in the 21st century respond to these absurdities by saying if that is what Christianity is all about then they want no part of it. As universal education grows, more and more people begin to embrace what we know about the way the universe works and more and more educated people take leave of their religious heritage, choosing citizenship in what Harvard's Harvey Cox called "the secular city," but I call the "Church Alumni Association." That sterile choice, which requires a closed mind, has risen in our time, I believe, because Christians have literalized their time bound and time warped explanations of both the God experience and the Jesus experience. Modern people can no longer believe the literalizations, because to believe literally violates their minds giving them the choice of sacrificing their brains or their faith.

Waddaya think: brains or faith? Can there be both? ;-) Warm regards, Roger

In the book, "Bloodline of the Holy Grail", Laurence Gardner talked about how the "raising of the dead" was actually a reference to symbolism surrounding the Church. Someone who was considered excommunicated from the Church was considered "dead". Christ "raising the dead" was talking about symbolically bringing people back into the Church.

It's an interesting concept.

http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/godmen.html#mithra
Horus
--He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus (“El-Osiris”), from the dead.

Krishna
--He worked miracles and wonders, raising the dead and healing lepers, the deaf and the blind.

Roger Morrison wrote:What Spong says in his latest News Letter:

Did Jesus really raise the dead? Is it biologically possible to bring back to life one who has been dead for four days? Does one have to make this assertion in order to be a Christian as literal minded believers seem to believe? Fundamentalists say that since stories that make this claim are in the Bible and the Bible is the word of God, they have to be true. They argue that since Jesus was the incarnation of the holy God, he was capable of doing anything that God could do. It is a circular argument which depends, of course, on the acceptance of the first of the five fundamentals, which asserts that the Bible is indeed inerrant since God is its author. People living in the 21st century respond to these absurdities by saying if that is what Christianity is all about then they want no part of it. As universal education grows, more and more people begin to embrace what we know about the way the universe works and more and more educated people take leave of their religious heritage, choosing citizenship in what Harvard's Harvey Cox called "the secular city," but I call the "Church Alumni Association." That sterile choice, which requires a closed mind, has risen in our time, I believe, because Christians have literalized their time bound and time warped explanations of both the God experience and the Jesus experience. Modern people can no longer believe the literalizations, because to believe literally violates their minds giving them the choice of sacrificing their brains or their faith.

Waddaya think: brains or faith? Can there be both? ;-) Warm regards, Roger

Roger,

It’s important to keep in mind the historical evolution of religious doctrines. Interpretation of specific biblical scripts do not agree. We have a range of doctrinal shifts throughout the Christian history.

Dramatic shifts have produced a fractured religion over time. Had it not been for the Emperor Constintine the Great, we might never have heard of the religion. Because Constintine from a position of power declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in the late 300s, it has survived.

There have been many divisions, splits, and start-up groups since that time.

Not only did Christianity influence political and intellectual life during medieval times, political and power structures influenced Christianity as well. Constant struggles between the religion and rulers prevailed. When Muslims invaded the Holy Land, European nations joined forces to fight them in the Crusades.

Even in the early years of the religion, heresies (beliefs opposed to official doctrine) developed. While its difficult to document far back in to history of Christianity, one of the great schisms (divisions) began in the 800s. The church at Rome and the church at Constantinople separated. In 1054, rivalries between the two groups resulted in a separation between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church.

Another significant schism occurred in the late 1300s. This schism led to rival popes and fractured Christianity.

The most recent major schism occurred in the 1500s with the emergence of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther precipitated a break from the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestants have divided over the past five centuries into more than 1,000 groups of various sizes. While the Roman Catholic Church began a counter reformation to reunite Christians, it has not succeeded.

Some Christian groups have united, others separated, and still different groups have formed.

The significant thing about all these groups is that each has tended to claim that it is the closest to “true Christianity.” Since these groups don’t agree and since they claim different things absolutely, none is reliable as representative of what people wish to be true Christianity.

Today, there is great competition for membership and of course wealth.

On your specific question, various interpretations can be found. Ancient religious scripts are filled with contradictions as well as inaccuracies. While the process of doctrinal shift is frequently slow and even painful for those indoctrinated in some particular religious myth, information tends to replace religious dogma.

One technique the religious employ is compartmentalization. That is, they have a kind of religion box. In that box, they keep all their unreasoned and unreasonable myths. About some things they are quite rational and pursue information. But about religious doctrine, they maintain a “closed door” insisting on believing that which lacks basis in known fact/evidence.

However, gradually and over time, culture/civilization tends to gravitate toward understanding through accumulation of information and knowledge. Because of virtually instant communication today, we can all become knowledgeable (if we choose) at the same time. A flood, hurricane, or tornado can be understood in a rational, informational way. God did it is generally less and less adequate as explanation.

“Brains” tend to prevail among the best informed. But with 6 billion people, more than half of which are in abject poverty and many near starvation, information is rather remote.

Since nature tends to resist a vacuum even of thought, it’s easier to make “faith” (religious dogma) win in impoverished, diseased masses of people. Since they lack the complexity of education, the simplicity of religion is much easier. “Faith” requires little “brain.” It appeals to emotions which even impoverished people have.

While there can be “both” even in the same person, the more information and the higher the level of rational understanding, the less attractive blind faith.

Keep in mind that humans have moved from more gods to fewer gods over time. Or, in response to your question, people have moved from greater reliance on “faith” to greater reliance on “brain.”

Education is about information and knowledge. Since “faiths” don’t agree, are in competition, and are unreliable “brain” is in search of consistent, reliable information on which even greater understanding can be built.

JAK

I don't think that I can agree with what Spong is arguing here. He seems to want religious people to find a third option between believing in the literal miracles of Jesus and rejecting them as impossible.

Frankly, what is the point of believing in Jesus if he didn't perform miracles and wasn't resurrected three days after dying? If none of that really happened, why should people bother worshipping him and devote their lives to following his every word?

Once you reject his supernatural miracles, Jesus loses his claim to divine authority and his teachings sit on par with any other philosophical position - one which needs to be rationally evaluated on its supposed merits.

Nonetheless, if more people were to accept that Jesus was just an important teacher rather than god incarnate, religion would probably be a less destructive force in modern society.

JAK wrote

Dramatic shifts have produced a fractured religion over time. Had it not been for the Emperor Constintine the Great, we might never have heard of the religion. Because Constintine from a position of power declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in the late 300s, it has survived.

OK historians. What's wrong with this statement?

richardMdBorn wrote:JAK wrote

Dramatic shifts have produced a fractured religion over time. Had it not been for the Emperor Constintine the Great, we might never have heard of the religion. Because Constintine from a position of power declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in the late 300s, it has survived.

OK historians. What's wrong with this statement?

Constantine died in the mid 300s?

richardMdBorn wrote:JAK wrote

Dramatic shifts have produced a fractured religion over time. Had it not been for the Emperor Constintine the Great, we might never have heard of the religion. Because Constintine from a position of power declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in the late 300s, it has survived.

OK historians. What's wrong with this statement?

Also Constantine really adopted Christianity out of political convenience, seeing as Christians formed a significant proportion of the population of Eastern Rome at the time?

C.C, why do you think that??

JAK, thanks for your rational, informed response. To which i say "Amen!"/ "Here-Here!"

Liz, yes, that is said by others too, and makes more sense--the "brain" thing...

Mok, "...any similarity to persons living or dead is purely coincidental..." The Shadow knows, HEH, HEH, HEH... Old enought to remember that un??

Canuckulehead, (from Que. eh?:-) you said:

Once you reject his supernatural miracles, Jesus loses his claim to divine authority and his teachings sit on par with any other philosophical position - one which needs to be rationally evaluated on its supposed merits.

Nonetheless, if more people were to accept that Jesus was just an important teacher rather than god incarnate, religion would probably be a less destructive force in modern society. (UL added)

Agree, which i think answers your own question, "...what is the point in believing ("in," which word i would remove :-) Jesus..." And, i suggest, cuz he said some pretty neat stuff that, IF taken out of the 'religious' context, just might help folks understand a higher human purpose--cooperation, not competion--and enjoy better lives across our globe...

Richard, just what is it you question about JAK's comments re Constantine The Great, Roman Emperor, AD 305 to AD 337, who fought, and won, the battle-of-the-bridge flying the Christian-Cross??.... Which pretty much did-in Mithras, God of Light... (Maybe the wrong guy won?? :-) The rest of the story, too, is history... Warm regards, Roger