It seems to me that one of the things that some people most object to are Spong’s seeming deviations from, or even disavowals of, Biblical doctrine. I would submit that the New Testament only represent interpretations of the life and teachings of Jesus, and is not an objective, unfiltered expression of them. Jesus did not write a word of either Testament. Jesus never heard of Saul of Tarsus. We have no idea what Jesus would have thought of Pauline Christianity. I think that it’s a mistake to say that the NT represents any kind of definitive take on who Jesus was. The parables and beatitudes can stand on their own as a complete and perfect moral teaching without any need at all for accepting any “saviours.” The sacrificial/salvationist view of the Christianity did not come from Jesus, but from those who sought to understand his death. I think that it is possible to start all over with the core teachings of Jesus and read them without regard to the rest of the New Testament. It is possible to base a new Christianity simply on what Jesus taught, and not what Paul, or Luke or John the Divine thought he meant by what he taught. An asoteriolgical (to coin a word) Christianity may be unBiblical, but I don’t think that Christianity has to be defined by the Bible.
“The words of the Apostles’ Creed, and its later expansion known as the Nicene Creed”
uh…
The Nicene Creed is not really an “expansion” of the Apostles’ Creed; in the sense of a “development from” it.
The Apostles’ Creed is a development from and expansion of the Old Roman Symbol; and is a much earlier creed than the Nicene which was formed in measure in an effort to deal with the Arian/Athanasius controversy.
Re-opened? It already IS re-opened - the fact that there are non-trinitarian churches, Unitarian Churches, Arian-like sects from Jehovah’s Witnesses to who-knows-what-else means that it is still going on; it’s BEEN re-opened really since the Reformation Age
John Milton - who wrote Paradise Lost - one of the most famous Christian allegories in Christian Literature; was non-Trinitarian and closer to Arian than Athanasian (you won’t see this in Paradise Lost itself, but it will be evident if you ever read Milton’s prose work “The Christian Doctrine” - written about the same time-frame as Lost/Regained (late 1600’s)
Not all Christianity is Nicene, Trinitarian, Athanasian Christianity; so Spong may be speaking for wanting “the official Episcopal position” on some things to change – but Christianity is already diverse; there are many denominations which are totally “non-Creedal”
As a matter of fact – in the early days of this country – the diversity was even MORE SO and theism/deism was pretty blurred
Yeah - you get some kooky cults and off the wall groups in with the freedom for each person to judge things for themselves - but that goes with the territory
(the territory of not having a
state-enforced, burn-at-the-stake-if-you-disagree type “National Church” -
sumpn our Founding Fathers did not want at a federal level.)
I don’t agree with much of Spong’s idea’s about the Nicene Creed at all - then again I don’t agree with some non-Trinitarinan churches and Arian-like christologies – but one should not say that the ones who hold them are not Christian
what I don’t like – ya know my “poison” – might be Mars’ “meat”; obviously it was, as related.
Dissenting, committed heterodox Christians through history are not “non-Christians”
they never were
but to change the Creed or deconstruct the meaning of the Creed is kind of silly
I can recite both the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed and believe in it without that meaning that I see adherence to it by others as necessary for them to be Christians; I know good and well some phrases don’t have the same meaning to me that they have to others
.
What would define it? How would we determine what Jesus said, and what he didn’t? How do we know that His disciples weren’t telling people He was off healing lepers, when in reality He was at the whorehouse?
Judas to Peter:
“Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more!”
Jetgirl, I think that Diogenes’s meaning is fairly clear by itself – not a rejection of the Biblical accounts of Jesus, read with the common sense to see what aspect of His teachings each of the four Evangelists was focused on – but rather the sort of Bibliocentric behavior that takes a given quote from I Corinthians advising the Christians in Corinth to avoid associating with people who behaved immorally (which Corinth was noted for), holds it to be “as much a part of God’s Word ™ as anything else,” and therefore you should judge everybody else and snub anybody you consider immoral by your personal take on what morality is (guided by the ever-loving judgmental comments of Paul and Moses), and never mind what Jesus said that might shape your views in a different direction.
I am probably getting very snitty about what was fairly obviously a joke of sorts – but there are people who take precisely that black-or-white buy-it-all-or-you’re-no-true-Christian attitude; I’m dealing with a couple right now. So excuse any asperity in the previous paragraph, please!
.
Nudge Not – That You Be Not Nudged!
.
(sorry - couldn’t hep it)
XJETGIRLX,
You have a good point. I would say that what you do is simply cherry-pick the the parables, the beatitudes and a few other sayings which are attributed to Jesus and are consonant with a gospel of love, and jettison the rest. Is it possible that Jesus didn’t really say those things? Of course, but I don’t care. Those sayings stand on their own as revealed wisdom no matter who said them. Since many of the sayings and parables are accredited to Jesus in multiple, independent attestations, I think it’s fairly certain that he said them. Other sayings, and virtually all of the deeds are much less reliable as history but I suppose that some of the anecdotal pericopes and the “signs” of John have, at least, allegorical value.
Hmmm…[pondering]…Ok, how about this? I say we cherry-pick the NT for that which we like and dispose of that which we don’t like. That is how the Canon was decided in the first place, you know. We should view Paul only as an interpreter of Christ and not as a spokesman. He never even met the guy, after all. The stuff where Paul says “God is love…?” Good stuff, keep it. All that stuff about being “saved by His blood,” dump it , we don’t need it. It’s archaic, it’s silly, it’s outdated. Jesus said “Love God…Love thy neighbor as thyself. Do this and you will be saved.” Love God and you’re neighbor. That’s it. No “Saviour” necessary. So who should we believe, Jesus or Paul?
:smack: That should say "Love God and your neighbor, not "you’re neighbor. I hate it when I make mistakes like that.
Polycarp: That’s the obvious way of going about things that I was pointing at. The way Spong has gone about it (From the incredibly informed opinion I have developed after reading two paragraphs of his works.) seems at the outset to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
XJETGIRLX is my wife, and I posted before realizing she was logged in(Cookies!) so that post is mine. Diogenes didn’t clarify his point enough for me to get it, so it’s not really a fault of his. However, by your assertion, Christianity would have to be based on the Bible, and what scant evidence we garner from archeological records and such.
Now I see that Poly’s last post pretty much nailed alot of what I meant. I’d be willing to modify my proposal to say that the words of Jesus, himself, should always be given more weight and consideration than the words of his commentators.
I’m also pretty sure that Poly does not agree at all with jettisoning the salvation doctrine, but I think he would agree that it should at least be articulated in new way. Am I right, Poly? You’ve said many times, both here and on the PP boards that you don’t necessarily subscribe to the notion that a literal belief in the sacrifice/atonement/resurrection of Christ is an unequivocal prerequisite to get into Heaven, so, as far as some Christians are concerned, you’re already off the reservation at least a little bit on that issue.
Just to clarify further, Copa, I didn’t mean that we shouldn’t use the NT at all, only that we shouldn’t be afraid to read it with the same critical standards that we would apply to any other historical records. I’m saying we need to let go of the belief that the NT is all equally inspired, inerrant and literally true. I think we can extract much of the authentic message of Jesus, supplement it by reading the commentaries of Paul and others (keeping in mind that the commentators speak only for themselves and their own experiences, not as human word processors for God) and synthesize a neoChristian paradigm which claims a legitimate pedigree from the words of Jesus, but does not necessitate a traditional belief in salvation.
Diogenes: What I’m getting at here is that it would be fine to base any and all of your personal philosophy on whomever you choose, and whatever you choose. But, that having been said, you can’t screw a dog at midnight in the park and call it Christianity(Not even if you’re wearing a funny hat), without at least raising a few eyebrows.
Christianity must have at it’s root a genuine seeking of the way of Christ. I think that Spong is doing that in his way, perhaps, and could thus be called Christian regardless of what conclusions he has drawn. So the purpose of dwindling the Bible to a splinter, is really to find the splinter that is Christ, and follow His way.
So, the weight of the words of Christ, as presented in the Bible, have no more weight than Paul’s(In those sections which Paul is ascribed to), or John’s, or Matthew’s. The purpose of the Bible in Christian life, as I see it, is to reverse engineer His teachings. If the result of that engineering is that Christ died for our sins, was the son of God, a wandering philosopher, or a madman, then so be it.
Great, Diogenes! Let’s just post at the same time so it looks we’re arguing about agreement.
Yes.
^^^ shortest Poly religion post ever! 
Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Where did you find any of these statements in the Bible? I have Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, and I can look any word up in the Bible; I’ve read it from end to end five times. The closest I can think of to a passgae declaring that the soul is made of atoms is Genesis 2:7, which says in one translation, “And the man came to be a living soul.” Thus the man himself is the soul.
My impression is that you would consider the Bible as nice literature, at best something to be read with a condescending attitude, and at worst tossed behind you and kicked away, while whatever is declared from a science source is to be accepted without question, until a subsequent science pronouncement supersedes it. But I want you to consider this comment by another writer:
“Does it make sense to you that people should live on this earth in perpetual hunger, as millions do today? [cf. Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb, 1968.] Then the Bible’s account of Jesus’ providing food for thousands may not seem important to you. Does it seem reasonable that a simple turtle may live more than 150 years, whereas the superior creation, man, despite modern medical science, must settle for half that life-span, even less? Then the miracles of healing recorded in the Bible may hold little interest for you. And does it seem logical to you that all prospect of seeing life again should forever end at death? Then the resurrection accounts of the Bible will stir no feeling of hope within you. On the other hand, if you find these things puzzling, if it seems clear to you that something is gravely wrong with living conditions on earth today, then the accounts of those miracles may reassure you…”
Incidentally, here’s that article about Mencken I mentioned earlier:
From The Daily Breeze, December 5, 1989…p. A-2
Mencken’s Secret Diary Shows Racist Leanings
BALTIMORE—the previously secret diary of writer and social critic H. L. Mencken reveals virulent anti-Semitism, racism and pro-Nazi leanings, shocking even the sympathetic Mencken scholar who edited it.
The diary, type-written on 2,100 pages from 1930 to 1948, was sealed on Mencken’s instructions for 25 years after his death in 1956. The (Baltimore) Evening Sun, where Mencken once worked, published excerpts Monday.
On the subject of Jews, Mencken wrote in December 1943 that the Maryland Club had decided against admitting any more Jewish members after the only one on its rolls died. “There is no other Jew in Baltimore who seems suitable,” he said.
Of blacks, he wrote in September 1943, “…it is impossible to talk anything resembling discretion or judgment to a colored woman. They are all essentially childlike, and even hard experience does not teach them anything.”
The book, The Diary of H. L. Mencken, was edited by Mencken scholar Charles A. Fecher of Baltimore and published by Alfred A. Knopf.
Thanks. Seems pretty clear to me…
I’m very glad they were so wise…
dougie, I don’t think you understood what i was saying. I was responding to this statement by you:
I was trying to make a point that the Bible obviously does contain metaphysical ideas. If the soul is not made of atoms, then it is metaphysical. If Heaven is not in the sky, then it is metaphysical. Since these ideas are indisputably metaphysical, then they are not literal, and we have now established that the bible does not, and cannot always be taken literally. Science deals only with the physical. It does not clash with the metaphysical because it can’t observe the metaphysical.
Well, dougie, I take the Bible seriously enough that I chose religion as my major course of study in college. I also got minors in history and classical languages specifically so that I could enhance my contextual understanding of the NT, read it untranslated and have a better understanding of where it came from. I wouldn’t have gone to all that trouble if I took a “condescending” attitude towards it. I may not believe it literally, but that doesn’t mean I don’t take it seriously.
Science does not make “pronouncements.” It hypothesizes, it tests, it observes, it draws conclusions. Those conclusions then have to be defended. The tests are repeated. The conclusions are challenged. Nothing is taken on faith. Nothing is just declared true by fiat. A textbook on physics does not just rest on the presumed “authority” of the book itself. Everything in it is testable by the reader. Newton, Einstein and Hawking are about as authoritative as physicists can get, and nobody takes their word, alone, for anything. If you think something in science is erroneous, then prove it dude. Test it yourself. Falsify it. Show why it’s false. Science can back it’s claims up with evidence, the Bible can’t. So when science conflicts with the Bible you have two choices; decide that the Bible is wrong, or find a new way to intepret it. Do you believe that the sky is a solid dome, dougie? The Bible says it is.
Sure it makes sense. Overpopulation is completely normal and expected result of a very successful species. Fortunately, we have also evolved brains which can make us aware of the problem and hopefully provide a strategy for dealing with it.
It has yet to be established that man is either “superior,” or a “creation,” but even if that were so, what would that have to do with our lifespan relative to other species. The success of a species is measured by proliferation, not by the lifespan of a single speciman. There is absolutely no reason why turtles should not live longer than people or why trees should not live longer than all of us.
It seems perfectly logical to me. Consciousness is all just contained in electrical currents in the brain. When the brain dies, conscious dies. Why is that illogical? It would be extremely illogical for that not to be the case. I personally have no longing for immortality. maybe you do, but that may also be an unreasonable expectation on your part.
Or maybe not. Maybe the conditions on Earth represent compelling evidence that there isn’t anyone in charge up there. Accounts of miracles are not the same as evidence of miracles. The harsh fact is that we do not have a single piece of verifiable evidence that any “God” has ever once intervened in the natural universe.
Yes, but we should not be surprised at this sad development. Paul told us:
2 Timothy 4
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
I like that! You say the term has no meaning, then go on to provide the meaning…
In a way you are correct though. Most of the New Age stuff is really just the Old Age stuff that’s been recycled. Kinda like New and Improved Coke, for one example.
Actually, without being harsh, science cannot explain everything about this amazing creation we live in. It would be much much better for you to put your faith in the Creator, than in science.