That all depends on how you view prison. Myself, I view it as an attmept at rehabilitation, not as a deterrent. The death penalty, on the other hand, is out-and-out revenge. I hardly think it counts as a deterrent because it is so rarely imposed.
Not to speak for gaudere, just myself
The reward of heaven/fear of hell is a driving force for some believers I’ve met. So there’s no question it is effective. I just find it a little dubious when mixed in with the idea of eternal love.
Interesting what motivates people, isn’t it?
Poly, I am by no means a theologian or even well read in theology (i.e. Aquinas and some of the heavier thinkers of the Church). I guess I was mostly thinking of the things the average person thinks of when they think of Christianity, what the average Joe knows about (maybe not knows, but has a vague understanding or a “I think I heard of that” type of knowledge) when you mention Christianity as a religion.
[slight hijack]I would be interested in getting some reading recommendations from you. I’m interested in learning more about the different interpretations of doctrine that the Church has worked through/with through its history.
Someone mentioned Aquinas - got a recommendation of “Aquinas-lite”; someone that can explain him to me!?
I truly love C.S. Lewis and am trying to work my way through Kierkegaard. [hijack]
Well, the Nicene Creed seems to cover all of BunnyGirl’s points except maybe the efficacy of prayer (and that’s probably implied in there somewhere–it’s certainly a traditional Christian belief):
It seems to me that other core doctrines would include the Trinity, the idea that Christianity is a continuation or “fulfillment” of Judaism (“He has spoken through the Prophets.”), and some form of baptism. I think BunnyGirl’s “redemption through the cross” and “resurrection of Jesus from the dead” pretty clearly implies resurrection and eteranal life for believers, but you could explicitly add that as a core belief as well. Of course various groups have rejected things from that list, but that summation nonetheless covers Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, the Baptists and Methodists, evangelicals and Fundamentalists, and most Pentecostals. (That is, it covers the historical or traditional views of those denominations, not necessarily your modernists like, well, Bishop Spong.)
I daresay he is ignorant of your particular interpretation of “the fall of man”, since I have never seen the two connected outside of your statements here on this MB. And even those Christians here who have heard your theory do not accept it as the “fall”. It’s not as if your theory is well-known and accepted enough that all should be aware fo it.
Er…should we attempt to clone human beings? Is suicide acceptable? Besides, I think he is referring to objective commands like “don’t lie”, which while it may be good in some situtations, may not be so in others. I daresay he considers the Golden Rule a good moral guideline, but it requires some subjective interpretation.
How did you get this idea from what I said? I specifically said threat of Hell may keep some people in line. I never said it wasn’t a deterrent. But fear of punishment as the sole motivator for moral behavior is not “true” morality. Someone who only fears punishment will do evil if they are certain they will not be punished. But someone who acts out of love for their fellow man will not hurt them even if they would never be punished for it.
I am against the death penalty. I am not against prison, though I would like prison to be a place to teach people not to do evil things and keep dangerous people away from those they might hurt, not solely as “punishment”. I accept that rewards and punishments can be effective at controlling behavior. What I object to is the sort of naive morality that thinks that rewards and punishments are the ONLY POSSIBLE way to promote “moral” behavior. I do not have a problem with those Christians who do not do evil because they love God and their fellow man. I don’t think much of those Christians who do not do evil to avoid Hell; similarily, I do not think much of those who only avoid killing becuase they don’t want to go to jail. I do recall a Christian or two who said they would murder and rape if they wouldn’t go to Hell for it; that’s what I consider “naive morality”.
I only agree with what the Catholic Church teaches! “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.” Surely Mr. Spong has heard of the Catholic Church!
No reason not to.
Nope. See Matt 5:16. You can’t “let your light shine before men” if you are dead.
His thesis are very open to interpretation – I’ll agree with you there.
OK, I get what you are saying. But if you start with an immoral person – how do you convince them to change their ways? I admit it promotes a naive morallity initially – but once they change their ways the afterlife should cease being a motivator for them since Love is it’s own reward. But if they don’t believe in Christian Love, getting them to that point without ye old rod and staff is fairly tricky.
MEBuckner and BunnyGirl, absolutely no argument. The Apostles Creed holds the core doctrines, allowing for the fact that it implies the Trinity and the Christological doctrines. My question to you two would be, are all points of that essential to Christianity in your opinion(s)? If, for example, someone was able to accept the doctrinal formulations except for the Virgin Birth, is he therefore excluded? What interpretations is it necessary or acceptable to put on “the resurrection of the body” or “the communion of saints” – I think a liberal Methodist, a conservative Catholic, and an average Southern Baptist would read these two concepts in quite different ways from each other.
Regarding Spong’s theses:
Based on other reading in Spong’s works, I understand this to mean that he rejects the idea that a material “secular” world in which things happen by inexorable law is juxtaposed with a “supernatural” realm that from time to time invades the secular world and supervenes over the inexorable natural law. So do I; I conceive of a unary world in which God is present and acts through natural law (as fully understood; we don’t yet) to carry out his teleological design, His will. I note that most of what devout Christians consider miracle, skeptics do not dispute the validity of but consider coincidence. This is not an argument over the reality of events, but over the metaphysical scheme in which they are understood. When I receive an insight into His Will as a result of reading Gaudere’s posts, that is Him speaking to me through her, albeit she would not see it that way. (See the works of Libertarian for more detail on this.)
What does “truly God and truly man” mean? What in God’s name happened in “the Jesus event”? Traditional formularies understand it in Aristotelian and Scholastic terms; no problem with that, but surely one’s faith need not depend on one’s grasp of philosophical speculation? What does “the incarnation” really mean? Is the Marcan “in Jesus we see God in human form” sufficient? Does “two natures with one will” have to be bought into? How does Jesus differ from other humans, and why? If my confirmation gave me “the gift of the Holy Spirit” then do I not have the divine nature as well as the human nature manifesting themselves through my single will? And how important is the teaching of that differentiation to true belief in Christ? Tough and deep issues to be dealt with. If the Baby Jesus “came down from heaven,” whence come other babies, and how do they as God’s gift to their parents differ from Him? I’m not necessarily ready with quick answers to all this, but I do maintain the validity of asking the questions.
We all fall short of God’s expectations, according to Jewish and Christian doctrine. In what way does the Adam myth, seen as story, fall short of what we need to understand the world in Darwinian yet Christian terms? Does the idea that some people regard Genesis 1-3 as literal truth and the discoveries of paleontology, cosmology, and historical geology as fraudulent misinterpretations of His world affect this?
I have no problem with the idea of a parthenogenetic boy baby, but why is this particular dogma something essential to the faith? I don’t have a clue what Spong is driving at in this one, except that in other works on the Gospels, he notes a now-discredited concept that the sperm is the genesis of the new child and the mother contributes nothing but a nurturing environment for the growing fetus. I suspect strongly that he sees the engendering of Jesus by the Holy Spirit in this light, and therefore rejects the concept in toto as a borrowing from that old concept. If the father (exclusively) gives rise to the baby, making it as human as he, then if Jesus’s father is God… Which of course makes hash of the orthodox concept that Jesus was truly human as well as divine.
Well, if you reject “supernatural intervention,” then yeah, this is a lousy interpretation. The key to me here is in St. John, who never once speaks of Jesus performing a “miracle” – the phenomenal events he records are all Jesus’s “signs” – and this is important to how John interprets them; they are not so much flashy attention-getters as validators and signals of what Jesus is trying to accomplish. Remember the midrashic tradition in speaking of the miracle stories in the Gospels.
I’m trying to picture this. Several Christians standing on the corner, people walking by, one of the Christians yelling, “Look over here: we love one another.” … I’m having a hard time imagining that as being effective. Any message would be ineffective if the Christians did not love one another, of course. But, by Jesus’s example, warning people of the dangers of hellfire is also a valid method. But, different strokes for different folks.
Only through being “born of water and Spirit” can you be saved – and Jesus will send you that Spirit if you keep his commandments. Like ya needed to ask
You know, my friend, that is an excellent question. It’s one that I’ve been working through for the last 2 years (although I guess I never actually saw or had it verbalized this succinctly) and I really can’t answer it yet.
[hijack]
I’ve been working through a lot of stuff in prayer and with much thought and meditation on these issues. I was raised in a very devoted charasmatic home in a very narrow church. That verse where Jesus said “…teaching as doctrines the commandments of men and ignoring the commandments of God…” (my paraphrase) has REALLY been in my head a lot - trying to do a lot of sifting. It’s pretty amazing how hard it is to unlearn doctrines/teachings you’ve been raised on. I know this will be common knowledge to some, but I realized on Saturday, during my quiet time, that you don’t need to believe in the Trinity to be saved or go to heaven. Don’t laugh at me; if you knew the teachings I had as a child, you’d know how much this goes against everything I’d been taught. [hijack]
Again, Poly, I’d be open for some reading recommendations from you, if you’ve got any.
I don’t think the Catholic Church agrees with you that it is the climate change that resulted in the Fall of Man, or your subsequent justification for that interpretation.
Oh, so that’s how all morality can be dictated by the Sermon on the Mount; if nothing in it is applicable, then it’s OK. Well, that’s one way to claim it’s completely comprehensive even if it doesn’t cover a lot of territory, I 'spose.
Even very young children can be taught “you shouldn’t do this because it is wrong–you see, you wouldn’t want anyone doing this to you, right?” I don’t think solely depending on the rod and staff in the way you imply is a good idea; as my mother says, “What people don’t realize when they speak of the rod and staff is that the shephard’s rod and staff are meant to guide the sheep, not to whack the lambs over the head.” If they have no love, of God or man or justice or right, then I agree you can only hold them out of fear or desire. I do not believe love can be taught through fear and rewards alone; rewards and punishments are a safety net and additional incentive, but relying on them wholly at any point is, IMHO, a mistake with a human at all capable of reason and love.
The problem with heaven and hell is I sometimes see people “stall out” at the basic reward/punishment scenario; heaven and hell is so totally encompassing that they don’t feel the need to move beyond it, while those who realize that they may not be punished for doing evil can gain a “true morality”, one where they do not do evil becase it is wrong and hurts others, rather than out of fear of punishment or desire for reward alone. Certainly we get enough peope on this MB asking how atheists can be moral if they don’t believe in hell. Curiously, when I see those Christians argue that few would do good without the threat of hell, they are also almost invariably the ones who believe that they can go to heaven no matter what sin they commit. Kind of strange how thay can fervently believe both at once. But anyhow, I don’t think Poly wants us hiajcking his Spong thread with basic morality arguments; I hope I have explained my reasoning enough.
IANAC, but I’ll try and give Polycarp’s most recent questions a whirl…
One thing to point out is that stuff like “surely one’s faith need not depend on one’s grasp of philosophical speculation?” is not one of the core doctrines which define Christianity. In other words, I think I can say “Christians believe in the Trinity” or “Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ” without any gross inaccuracy. Those statements at least nominally cover the great majority of Christians, historically and demographically speaking. However, the question “what sort of grasp of the theological nitty-gritty of the Trinity does the believer have to have to be saved?” is one that will get you different answers depending on denomination. Salvation and justification are things which Christians have historically been divided over (although I guess that there is some sort of general consensus that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus ahve something to do with salvation). The Athanasian Creed pretty much appears to say that you have to believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation of Jesus Christ as the Son of God or you go to hell. But exactly how deep “acceptance” of this creed has to be for salvation–among those who agree that you have to accept those things to be saved–is probably going to vary depending on who you ask. Even within denominations–e.g., the Roman Catholic Church–there are going to be different schools of thought.
The virgin birth has historically been very widely accepted by Christians, so saying “Christians believe in the virgin birth” isn’t too much of a stretch. As to whether or not belief in the virgin birth is necessary to salvation (or to “being a Christian”)–different groups of Christians would probably answer differently. There are some little Protestant sects who basically say “if you aren’t a member of our specific church, you’re going to hell”, but most Christians would probably have broader definitions than that.
As far as it goes for me, if I’m trying to sort out who’s a Christian and who isn’t, I’d probably say that Christians believe in the Trinity and that Jesus is the crucified and resurrected Son of God, with the second part being more central to the definition than the first (since I guess I’d still call Jehovah’s Witnesses Christians). If someone who doesn’t believe in those things wants to call themselves a Christian, it is of course a free country, but I think that’s straining the definition. If someone says they believe in the Trinity, the Resurrection, and the Christhood of Jesus, but they seem to be “redefining” those terms to the point that they no longer resemble anything that Christians have meant by them, then I do think they’re playing a bit fast and loose with the language.
I’m not sure, but I think Freedom2 may be verging on doing that common Protestant evangelical thing of defining “Christian” as “Protestant”. It’s possible that Catholic or Orthodox Christians would accept his statement, and just “interpret” it in a way he wouldn’t agree with, though.
But that isn’t the grounds upon which I’m disagreeing with Spong. Again, while I find his statements slippery, I don’t see how Darwin makes non-sense out of the traditional teaching of Christendom regarding the fall of man, nor have I ever seen any scientific evidence that makes such a belief mythical.
Hey, it doesn’t say whether jumping up and down on one foot is ethical or not either. What exactly do you want “comprehensive” to mean? You maybe want an exhaustive list from a computer detailing every possible situation which a checkbox next to each? Don’t hold your breath.
Not to disagree with mom – she might be right. I’ve always heard that the rod was for punishing and the staff for leading. Otherwise, all you’d need is the staff.
Hell is also there to appease those who cry out for justice. According to Jesus, the True Judge listens to those people. (I agree more with, IMHO, John’s “staff-ish” gospel than Luke’s “rod-ish” gospel at heart when it comes to salvation)
I believe what he is saying is that the concept that at one time man did not sin at all, then he fell and started sinning is “mythical”. (Even you must admit that before the time of what you consider the “fall”, there was probably a nasty person or two around.) He may even be arguing against Adam and Eve perceived as literally made from dust in one day, living in literal Garden of Eden; that has certainly been disproved by evolution, since we know man did not spring forth fully formed, but evolved, and so there is no real “first man” to commit the first sin. However, I have not read his work, so this is just speculation.
jmullaney, the needs of the state, and what God requires of us, are two completely separate things, if Scripture has any bearing. The Christian God is concerned with the conversion of hearts, according to Scripture; the state, OTOH, doesn’t care about the state of your heart, as long as you don’t go around murdering, looting, raping, and whatnot. It doesn’t have penalties in order to convert your soul, but to protect you and your fellow citizens from each other. So I’d question the relevance of earthbound penalties such as prison or the death penalty to the validity of hell as an aid in God’s spiritual scheme of things, whatever that scheme may be.
Not Guilty.
How do you know that **I’m ** not Catholic?
My statement is going to leave almost everyone feeling a little uneasy, but I think that was the point.
Is there any denomination of Christianity that DOES NOT have that as a core belief? How would my statement leave Catholics out in the cold? I’m not all that up on the specifics of Orthodox Christianity, so if you could point out a contradiction they would have I would be happy to deal with it.
