The literalism and inerrancy stuff is a recent phenomenon associated with 20th-century American Christianity. My understanding is that throughout even the Middle Ages, people wouldn't have thought to interpret the Bible the way many conservative American Christians do today.
Well let me disabuse you of that notion. There was controversy at one time, centuries ago, but just as a matter of interpretation and that was settled centuries ago. And since when was there question about the existence of God?
Quote:
I guess we could simply ignore it. While we're at it why don't we ignore Homer and Plato too? Ignoring it is not an option for a person interested in human history. The other option is to read it as the literal truth. That's not an option for many people either. So you're left with reading it but reading it skeptically and analytically.
Fine, read the book, that's fine. But why use the word "Christian"? Why?
We read Homer and Plato to understand the past, but we don't take The Odyssey as fact and we don't call ourselves "Homerites" because we think his stuff is cool.
Quote:
That's how Christianity was defined after Jesus died. There was substantial debate about it, with many Christians believing that Jesus was not divine. Now Spong is calling for a reformation of that long-held definition.
Spong doesn't even believe in God. It just does not make any sense at all.
Quote:
But the larger point is that Spong wants to redefine religion for the modern world.
Why? It is pointless.
His energies would be better used to further secular philosophy.
Well let me disabuse you of that notion. There was controversy at one time, centuries ago, but just as a matter of interpretation and that was settled centuries ago. And since when was there question about the existence of God?
My reading suggests that the Bible has not been interpreted as factual truth until very recently. Granted, I've been reading mainly liberal stuff, but I believe it's accurate from an historical perspective. I couldn't find anything much on the internet, but this entry from wikipedia seems to confirm it.
Quote:
Throughout antiquity and the medieval periods, allegorical methods of interpretation were popular. The earliest use of these was probably Philo, who attempted to make Jewish halakah palatable to the Greek mind by interpreting it as symbolising philosophical doctrines. Allegorical interpretation was adopted by Christians, and continued in popularity until a reaction against it during the Reformation, and it has not since found much favour in Western Christianity.
Even today, the Catholic Church sees itself as the interpreter of the Bible, and so what it says goes, not what individuals think the Bible says.
But you're right, I doubt there was ever a serious debate about the actual existence of God. But the concept of God has changed dramatically throughout history. Many of our country's founding Fathers during the Enlightenment had a conception of God that was not too different from Spong's. In contrast, the early Jews seemed to believe that Yahweh was very much of a tribal god who competed with other gods and took human form, not unlike some of the Greek gods.
Quote:
Fine, read the book, that's fine. But why use the word "Christian"? Why?
We read Homer and Plato to understand the past, but we don't take The Odyssey as fact and we don't call ourselves "Homerites" because we think his stuff is cool.
Spong doesn't even believe in God. It just does not make any sense at all.
Why? It is pointless.
His energies would be better used to further secular philosophy.
Maybe he should just give up on religion altogether. That's what you and me and many folks have done. I think maybe the reason is that he sees it as serving an important function that can't be fully served elsewhere. Maybe he goes too far, but I think our present situation, with Christianity so dominated by a conservative, literalist interpretation, should be challenged.
All Spong is saying is that he does not believe in an interventionist God.
I think he goes a bit further than that. Maybe I'm exaggerating when I call him an atheist, but in the talk I heard him give he sure sounds like one, or at least what most people today would call an atheist. He says that God is dead. He says that our theistic notion of God is wrong. He does say that he believes God is the label we give to a kind of Star Wars-like force, or something. Maybe I'm just too grounded in Michelangelo's version of God, that anything else seems like atheism.
The two don't mix and match by definition. So you cannot be a Christian and an aethist.
And since when do all religions have a god? Why, I think you are using a Christian definition of religion. And I think that therefore, there is some debate as to its definition.
I read some more from Spong and re-read what I read earlier, and I have to draw back my comment that he advocates atheism plus some weak-ass philosophy. He can mean that (probably not though), or he can mean what I wrote in the earlier post - "no supernatural things happen in the world except the kind that can never ever be proven true". Strange, but religion often is.
edit: to further clarify, the above means I think Spong is probably religious and a christian, though he doesn't make things very exact and obvious. He uses language liberally, that's for sure.
None of the things that you mention Spong believing are un-Christian per se, just from an older eastern type of Christianity. I suppose the debate is about the degree to which Christianity has moved away from its eastern root and become 'westernised'.
When you say eastern what do you mean - Rome (west) vs. Eastern Orthodox?
Quote:
Actually, the idea of God being dead is quite Biblical if you take a consecutive reading of the OT (always a laugh). At first God is really 'hands-on' and kind of 'one of the family', intervening all the times and generally throwing His weight around. As the OT progresses so does God diminish - He is fairly full on until the book of Kings and speaks often, after this He speaks less but is spoken about and figures less in the narrative. More remote. By the time He gets to Job He is almost done and His words there are the last He speaks in the BIble.
After this He is spoken of hardly at all and in Esther He is not even mentioned once.
By the time Jesus comes on the scene He has been long gone. And Jesus's God is in no way the same being as even the most causal reading of the Old and new Testaments will confirm. So, in a way, Spong could be write and still be a Christian. Maybe he just feels the OT needs jettisoning from the New. that would be pretty much in line with Jesus's thought if not the Church's.
That's very interesting. I started reading Karen Armstrong's "History of God," and it gets into a lot of that stuff, but I set it aside and only got through the ancient Hebrews.
But it makes me wonder whether Spong is really such a radical as it sounds to my ears. My view of Christianity, and I take it groverat's view also, is so heavily dominated by the modern American literalist/fundamentalist POV that anything short of a bearded man in the sky sounds atheistic. But our founders like Jefferson and many other Enlightenment Christians had views similar to Spong's and perhaps throughout history others had similar views. So maybe it's us who are out of the mainstream of the historical views of religion, rather than Spong, and he just sounds radical to our ears because we're the radicals.
On the other hand, Spong himself doesn't seem to see things that way. He views his beliefs as very radical. This is from an article in which he compares himself to Martin Luther:
Quote:
My sense is that history has come to a point where only one thing will save this venerable faith tradition at this critical time in Christian history, and that is a new Reformation far more radical than Christianity has ever before known and that this Reformation must deal with the very substance of that faith. This Reformation will recognize that the pre-modern concepts in which Christianity has traditionally been carried will never again speak to the post-modern world we now inhabit. This Reformation will be about the very life and death of Christianity. Because it goes to the heart of how Christianity is to be understood, it will dwarf in intensity the Reformation of the 16th century. It will not be concerned about authority, ecclesiastical polity, valid ordinations and valid sacraments. It will be rather a Reformation that will examine the very nature of the Christian faith itself. It will ask whether or not this ancient religious system can be refocused and re-articulated so as to continue living in this increasingly non-religious world.
And since when do all religions have a god? Why, I think you are using a Christian definition of religion. And I think that therefore, there is some debate as to its definition.
Please enlighten me. I thought all religions had a God. It doesn't have to be a human form like Christ, but there I thought there was representation of God in some form or the other like the Buddists and Hindus. I would like to learn about religions that don't have a God or a messenger of some sort.
Yes, that last statement of Spong's is highly suspect. I see what you mean. It is quite an unusual thing to say as it implies that Christianity never had any answer whereas I would take the position that it did have but lost it and all could be fixed by going back to basics. It's almost a denial of the whole Christian tradition.
You can see where he's coming from though. He's denying the resurrection, the virgin birth, Jesus's divinity, and other core elements of Christianity. It's not like there have been lots of other major Christian groups throughout history who agree with Spong. Even the heretical Christian writings, like those of the gnostics, are theistic; they often seem to me to have an even more well-developed set of supernatural beliefs and gods and other strange things. I'm not saying you can't make the case, based on an historical approach, that the virgin birth and the divinity of Jesus were later add-ons - I think it's clear that they were - just that it's hard to find many organized groups who agree with Spong.
Quote:
And yes, I was referring to the eastern Orthodox Church above - the Nestorians don't believe in Christ being the son of God and it really is a ludicrous misconception of later Church 'thinkers'. One of many such mistakes unfortunately.
Nestorians huh? Never heard of 'em. This is before the split in 1000, I assume? I thought the main (theological) split was over relatively minor things like the presence in the eucharist and whether Jesus was 100% divine or 50-50 divine and human.
Quote:
Exactly. Religions can be Theistic or non-Theistic but they cannot dispense with 'God (s)' or else they cease to be a religion by definition.
Actually, it really depends on your definition and scanning through the OED catalogue of definitions the broadest ones lack any reference to God.
But this is all off topic, really...
As the thread starter, I declare this officially on-topic.
I think it is relevant because the basic question is whether you can be Christian, or religious more generally, while at the same time completely rejecting the supernatural. It's the supernatural, especially when it contradicts the empirical world-view that so many of us modern folk have, that's probably the major stumbling block for lots of people.
If you could be Christian, and yet not believe in miracles, and not believe in a man in the sky, or heaven or hell, or a virgin birth, etc., but instead believe that Jesus was a teacher with an important message, I think a lot more people could be Christians.
My guess is that a lot of Jews take exactly that approach to Judaism. For many of them, it's about culture and tradition (tra-dition!). I think I read somewhere that the majority of Jews in the world are atheists. They might participate in rituals and ceremonies for cultural reasons, but not because they genuinely believe in God. I wonder how many Christians take that approach? It seems to be going in the opposite direction for us. More and more of us are becoming fundamentalists and literalists, and that's driving a wedge between them and the more moderate Christians.
Freke and Gandy, as it says in the link. I read a few chapters last night. I dont think it's a case of being good (though I'm finding it 'good'), but it's an analysis and explanation of what the Gnostics were teaching before they were suppressed by the Roman Chuch. I flicked through, towards the end I spotted a mention of Islam being founded on Gnostic teaching - but I wont comment yet, because it really was just a sentance that jumped out at me because you mentioned it the other day.
Sadly, I just picked up a small contract for evening work doing artwork for a local newspaper, so in true DMZ style....I just gotta go do some work no...real paid work... so I'll not get a chance to read for a few days. Later.
And christianity isn't a group of cultural subgroups. psha.
The problem I have with people when they discuss Jews as solely a cultural group is precisely the reason exemplified here. There are radical differences between the various cultures that practise the religion of Judaism. From sephardic, to arabic, to ashkenazi, to american, these people have their own f-ing cultures of which only a part is Judaism, and even the cultural practise of Judaism radically varies between these cultural groups -- so in our broad definition of religion, these are different religions. Which brings me back to my main point, if we conceive of Judaism as a primarily cultural thing, then we must by necessity concieve of Christianity as a primarily cultural thing. I was raised in a jewish household, and let me tell you something -- I don't drink your crappy egg nog, light up a tree, open presents, eat pork (and that is definitely, within the western world, a Christian only phenomenon), etc etc. There is so much cultural crap that us non-christians get assaulted with, it is no wonder you christians think you don't have a culture that is common.
Here is the point ultimately: Religion in the sense of worship/meditation is contained within the texts or thoughts each Religion has, and all the rest of the crap that these "religious cultural groups" spew out -- that is culture, and there is a distinct culture that most christians share (and I will not be stupid enough to claim it is universal)...
Going slightly off on a tangent here, I was listening to a Radio 4 program called "In Our Time" the other day. Basically Melvyn Bragg gets a few experts in to discuss a topic.
I was checking out the one about the devil as that is a subject I always find interesting fundamentalists seem to be strangely uninformed about it, yet also utterly unaware of their ignorance. Also a perfect example of why a literal reading of the Bible is a ridiculous position and how history and culture has affected our reading of the Bible.
One tidbit I was particularly taken by was discussion of Satan in the Koran and how he is portrayed (as he is in sections of the OT) as a trickster or liar. So when the US is called "The Great Satan" they are actually being accussed of being liars (which is fair enough). But it gets better, because apparently, in the Koran/OT, unlike many modern interpretations, Satan is ultimately a figure of ridicule because God/Allah created him and could destroy him on a whim, so the US, as well being a liar, is pathetic because they still fall under the rule of Allah/God.
That is a very interesting question, but the incident that inspired that question, mainly a church-official who called christianity to discard any supernational belief-systems is so rediculous that I truly am asking myself why the church didn't excommunicate or at least fire (not in the sense of inquisition) him from his job in the church.
I'm not a christian, but a muslim, and I'm of the opinion that religion without a belief in some supernatural being(s) and activities has no point.
Nonetheless it's still possible to be a christian and an atheist at the same time, in the sense that being a christian means being born and raised in a christian family/country, but somehow losing belief over the time, but not wanting to break with family, traditions and culture.
Christians are Atheists in denial anyway. Whatever the original teacher said, whatever the original theology says, whether the diety existed or not, there can't be many people who actually adhere to the teachings of the founder of any religion. Religion is a business, whether your a fundamentalist, liberalist, satanist, commie...you pay your money and you buy the warm fuzzy feeling. Religions aren't the way to God.
Connecting with spirituality doesn't cost anything, all it requires is alot of deep thought searching.
I say worship the sun, it never lets you down, it created life, sustains life, and you can prove it exists. The sun is God.
Was Christ a Christian ? By the Church's definition certainly not.
With no disrespect to the thread and the contributors, imo the Spong issue is actually ridiculous and irrelevant.
There really is no reality in religion - that is to say: religion is a deterioration of the teaching of an individual in ALL cases. It's just the name we give spirituality or wisdom when it has become corrupted. That's it.
In this sense Spong is right - you can certainly be spiritual without a conception of God. And spirituality is the root of religion. Religion wouldn't exist without spirituality but spirituality would always exist without religion.
None of the founders of the great religions would be accepted by these religionists. I can give you five hadith off the top of my head where Muhammad states this will be the case in future and where he said things that are 'unorthodox' and unacceptable to current Muslim thought.
And more from the Christian tradition. So the religions are in opposition to their founders in many ways, I hold that these men are right and the later religious interpretations (ie the Church) wrong.
And then you can go further: you see that the religions are nominally opposed and you see the wars and trouble that result - but if you look at the founders - Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Moses - they are all saying the same thing.
We need to dispense with religion imo - progress to a situation where we have instead 'the wise' from humanity as our role models (these would not just be spiritual people - you'd need philosophers and 'ordinary' people in there too) and dispense with authoritarian culture-based exclusive clubs.
Because that's what they are.
You couldn't be more wrong. Budda did not 'say' the same same thing as Christ -- niether did Muhammad. No other religion has a Christ figure -- they have God coming down into our realm, but it's either 'all God' or 'all man.' Without trinitaian doctrine all things are consumed into the ONE in Buddism, Islam, etc. -- not to mention their metaphysics disintigrate under scrutiny. ALL world religions fail Critisism (as in Kantian critisism), except for Christianity.
Without a self-identifying Christ, an incaranate diety who can TRULY bridge the gap between historia and the "wholly other" realm, and revealing truth as a person, not an abstract concept, you have pure contingency. Without Christ to reveal to us who we truly are, you have a Kantian world of the mind shaping all 'facts'. Therein lies the conflict, the "offense of the Cross".
Comments
Originally posted by staphbaby
Well, Spong sounds like a pretty typical Anglican to me... the Anglican church is more of a social club than a theological stamping ground.
On the other hand, John Stott, who is considered by some to be the father of American evangelical Christianity, is also an Anglican.
The literalism and inerrancy stuff is a recent phenomenon associated with 20th-century American Christianity. My understanding is that throughout even the Middle Ages, people wouldn't have thought to interpret the Bible the way many conservative American Christians do today.
Well let me disabuse you of that notion. There was controversy at one time, centuries ago, but just as a matter of interpretation and that was settled centuries ago. And since when was there question about the existence of God?
I guess we could simply ignore it. While we're at it why don't we ignore Homer and Plato too? Ignoring it is not an option for a person interested in human history. The other option is to read it as the literal truth. That's not an option for many people either. So you're left with reading it but reading it skeptically and analytically.
Fine, read the book, that's fine. But why use the word "Christian"? Why?
We read Homer and Plato to understand the past, but we don't take The Odyssey as fact and we don't call ourselves "Homerites" because we think his stuff is cool.
That's how Christianity was defined after Jesus died. There was substantial debate about it, with many Christians believing that Jesus was not divine. Now Spong is calling for a reformation of that long-held definition.
Spong doesn't even believe in God. It just does not make any sense at all.
But the larger point is that Spong wants to redefine religion for the modern world.
Why? It is pointless.
His energies would be better used to further secular philosophy.
And if I did I would kneel down and ask him.
Not to intervene when it came to you.
Oh not to touch a hair on your head, leave you as you are.
And if He feels He has to direct you, then direct you into my arms.
(That song got me laid.
Originally posted by groverat
Well let me disabuse you of that notion. There was controversy at one time, centuries ago, but just as a matter of interpretation and that was settled centuries ago. And since when was there question about the existence of God?
My reading suggests that the Bible has not been interpreted as factual truth until very recently. Granted, I've been reading mainly liberal stuff, but I believe it's accurate from an historical perspective. I couldn't find anything much on the internet, but this entry from wikipedia seems to confirm it.
Throughout antiquity and the medieval periods, allegorical methods of interpretation were popular. The earliest use of these was probably Philo, who attempted to make Jewish halakah palatable to the Greek mind by interpreting it as symbolising philosophical doctrines. Allegorical interpretation was adopted by Christians, and continued in popularity until a reaction against it during the Reformation, and it has not since found much favour in Western Christianity.
Even today, the Catholic Church sees itself as the interpreter of the Bible, and so what it says goes, not what individuals think the Bible says.
But you're right, I doubt there was ever a serious debate about the actual existence of God. But the concept of God has changed dramatically throughout history. Many of our country's founding Fathers during the Enlightenment had a conception of God that was not too different from Spong's. In contrast, the early Jews seemed to believe that Yahweh was very much of a tribal god who competed with other gods and took human form, not unlike some of the Greek gods.
Fine, read the book, that's fine. But why use the word "Christian"? Why?
We read Homer and Plato to understand the past, but we don't take The Odyssey as fact and we don't call ourselves "Homerites" because we think his stuff is cool.
Spong doesn't even believe in God. It just does not make any sense at all.
Why? It is pointless.
His energies would be better used to further secular philosophy.
Maybe he should just give up on religion altogether. That's what you and me and many folks have done. I think maybe the reason is that he sees it as serving an important function that can't be fully served elsewhere. Maybe he goes too far, but I think our present situation, with Christianity so dominated by a conservative, literalist interpretation, should be challenged.
Originally posted by segovius
All Spong is saying is that he does not believe in an interventionist God.
I think he goes a bit further than that. Maybe I'm exaggerating when I call him an atheist, but in the talk I heard him give he sure sounds like one, or at least what most people today would call an atheist. He says that God is dead. He says that our theistic notion of God is wrong. He does say that he believes God is the label we give to a kind of Star Wars-like force, or something. Maybe I'm just too grounded in Michelangelo's version of God, that anything else seems like atheism.
Originally posted by talksense101
Lets stop redefining terms.
The two don't mix and match by definition. So you cannot be a Christian and an aethist.
And since when do all religions have a god? Why, I think you are using a Christian definition of religion. And I think that therefore, there is some debate as to its definition.
or
Athiest + Christian = Diest? || Unitarian? || Bahai?
edit: to further clarify, the above means I think Spong is probably religious and a christian, though he doesn't make things very exact and obvious. He uses language liberally, that's for sure.
Originally posted by segovius
None of the things that you mention Spong believing are un-Christian per se, just from an older eastern type of Christianity. I suppose the debate is about the degree to which Christianity has moved away from its eastern root and become 'westernised'.
When you say eastern what do you mean - Rome (west) vs. Eastern Orthodox?
Actually, the idea of God being dead is quite Biblical if you take a consecutive reading of the OT (always a laugh). At first God is really 'hands-on' and kind of 'one of the family', intervening all the times and generally throwing His weight around. As the OT progresses so does God diminish - He is fairly full on until the book of Kings and speaks often, after this He speaks less but is spoken about and figures less in the narrative. More remote. By the time He gets to Job He is almost done and His words there are the last He speaks in the BIble.
After this He is spoken of hardly at all and in Esther He is not even mentioned once.
By the time Jesus comes on the scene He has been long gone. And Jesus's God is in no way the same being as even the most causal reading of the Old and new Testaments will confirm. So, in a way, Spong could be write and still be a Christian. Maybe he just feels the OT needs jettisoning from the New. that would be pretty much in line with Jesus's thought if not the Church's.
That's very interesting. I started reading Karen Armstrong's "History of God," and it gets into a lot of that stuff, but I set it aside and only got through the ancient Hebrews.
But it makes me wonder whether Spong is really such a radical as it sounds to my ears. My view of Christianity, and I take it groverat's view also, is so heavily dominated by the modern American literalist/fundamentalist POV that anything short of a bearded man in the sky sounds atheistic. But our founders like Jefferson and many other Enlightenment Christians had views similar to Spong's and perhaps throughout history others had similar views. So maybe it's us who are out of the mainstream of the historical views of religion, rather than Spong, and he just sounds radical to our ears because we're the radicals.
On the other hand, Spong himself doesn't seem to see things that way. He views his beliefs as very radical. This is from an article in which he compares himself to Martin Luther:
My sense is that history has come to a point where only one thing will save this venerable faith tradition at this critical time in Christian history, and that is a new Reformation far more radical than Christianity has ever before known and that this Reformation must deal with the very substance of that faith. This Reformation will recognize that the pre-modern concepts in which Christianity has traditionally been carried will never again speak to the post-modern world we now inhabit. This Reformation will be about the very life and death of Christianity. Because it goes to the heart of how Christianity is to be understood, it will dwarf in intensity the Reformation of the 16th century. It will not be concerned about authority, ecclesiastical polity, valid ordinations and valid sacraments. It will be rather a Reformation that will examine the very nature of the Christian faith itself. It will ask whether or not this ancient religious system can be refocused and re-articulated so as to continue living in this increasingly non-religious world.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
And since when do all religions have a god? Why, I think you are using a Christian definition of religion. And I think that therefore, there is some debate as to its definition.
Please enlighten me. I thought all religions had a God. It doesn't have to be a human form like Christ, but there I thought there was representation of God in some form or the other like the Buddists and Hindus. I would like to learn about religions that don't have a God or a messenger of some sort.
Also, you might want to check out Theology.
Originally posted by segovius
Yes, that last statement of Spong's is highly suspect. I see what you mean. It is quite an unusual thing to say as it implies that Christianity never had any answer whereas I would take the position that it did have but lost it and all could be fixed by going back to basics. It's almost a denial of the whole Christian tradition.
You can see where he's coming from though. He's denying the resurrection, the virgin birth, Jesus's divinity, and other core elements of Christianity. It's not like there have been lots of other major Christian groups throughout history who agree with Spong. Even the heretical Christian writings, like those of the gnostics, are theistic; they often seem to me to have an even more well-developed set of supernatural beliefs and gods and other strange things. I'm not saying you can't make the case, based on an historical approach, that the virgin birth and the divinity of Jesus were later add-ons - I think it's clear that they were - just that it's hard to find many organized groups who agree with Spong.
And yes, I was referring to the eastern Orthodox Church above - the Nestorians don't believe in Christ being the son of God and it really is a ludicrous misconception of later Church 'thinkers'. One of many such mistakes unfortunately.
Nestorians huh? Never heard of 'em.
Exactly. Religions can be Theistic or non-Theistic but they cannot dispense with 'God (s)' or else they cease to be a religion by definition.
Would you consider Buddhism and Taoism religions?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...329830-6538239
I havn't read more than a few pages, but it's clear it deals mainly with the gnostics in some detail.
Have you read it? Opinion?
I also bought the egyptian Book of the Dead. I thought it was going to be a small book!!!: Shit
Should be a fun Sol Invicta this year.
Originally posted by segovius
Exactly. Religions can be Theistic or non-Theistic but they cannot dispense with 'God (s)' or else they cease to be a religion by definition.
Actually, it really depends on your definition and scanning through the OED catalogue of definitions the broadest ones lack any reference to God.
But this is all off topic, really...
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Actually, it really depends on your definition and scanning through the OED catalogue of definitions the broadest ones lack any reference to God.
But this is all off topic, really...
As the thread starter, I declare this officially on-topic.
I think it is relevant because the basic question is whether you can be Christian, or religious more generally, while at the same time completely rejecting the supernatural. It's the supernatural, especially when it contradicts the empirical world-view that so many of us modern folk have, that's probably the major stumbling block for lots of people.
If you could be Christian, and yet not believe in miracles, and not believe in a man in the sky, or heaven or hell, or a virgin birth, etc., but instead believe that Jesus was a teacher with an important message, I think a lot more people could be Christians.
My guess is that a lot of Jews take exactly that approach to Judaism. For many of them, it's about culture and tradition (tra-dition!). I think I read somewhere that the majority of Jews in the world are atheists. They might participate in rituals and ceremonies for cultural reasons, but not because they genuinely believe in God. I wonder how many Christians take that approach? It seems to be going in the opposite direction for us. More and more of us are becoming fundamentalists and literalists, and that's driving a wedge between them and the more moderate Christians.
Originally posted by segovius
No, who wrote it ? Is it any good ?
Freke and Gandy, as it says in the link. I read a few chapters last night. I dont think it's a case of being good (though I'm finding it 'good'), but it's an analysis and explanation of what the Gnostics were teaching before they were suppressed by the Roman Chuch. I flicked through, towards the end I spotted a mention of Islam being founded on Gnostic teaching - but I wont comment yet, because it really was just a sentance that jumped out at me because you mentioned it the other day.
Sadly, I just picked up a small contract for evening work doing artwork for a local newspaper, so in true DMZ style....I just gotta go do some work
The problem I have with people when they discuss Jews as solely a cultural group is precisely the reason exemplified here. There are radical differences between the various cultures that practise the religion of Judaism. From sephardic, to arabic, to ashkenazi, to american, these people have their own f-ing cultures of which only a part is Judaism, and even the cultural practise of Judaism radically varies between these cultural groups -- so in our broad definition of religion, these are different religions. Which brings me back to my main point, if we conceive of Judaism as a primarily cultural thing, then we must by necessity concieve of Christianity as a primarily cultural thing. I was raised in a jewish household, and let me tell you something -- I don't drink your crappy egg nog, light up a tree, open presents, eat pork (and that is definitely, within the western world, a Christian only phenomenon), etc etc. There is so much cultural crap that us non-christians get assaulted with, it is no wonder you christians think you don't have a culture that is common.
Here is the point ultimately: Religion in the sense of worship/meditation is contained within the texts or thoughts each Religion has, and all the rest of the crap that these "religious cultural groups" spew out -- that is culture, and there is a distinct culture that most christians share (and I will not be stupid enough to claim it is universal)...
I was checking out the one about the devil as that is a subject I always find interesting fundamentalists seem to be strangely uninformed about it, yet also utterly unaware of their ignorance. Also a perfect example of why a literal reading of the Bible is a ridiculous position and how history and culture has affected our reading of the Bible.
The Devil: A Brief Biography (realaudio available)
One tidbit I was particularly taken by was discussion of Satan in the Koran and how he is portrayed (as he is in sections of the OT) as a trickster or liar. So when the US is called "The Great Satan" they are actually being accussed of being liars (which is fair enough). But it gets better, because apparently, in the Koran/OT, unlike many modern interpretations, Satan is ultimately a figure of ridicule because God/Allah created him and could destroy him on a whim, so the US, as well being a liar, is pathetic because they still fall under the rule of Allah/God.
That is a very interesting question, but the incident that inspired that question, mainly a church-official who called christianity to discard any supernational belief-systems is so rediculous that I truly am asking myself why the church didn't excommunicate or at least fire (not in the sense of inquisition) him from his job in the church.
I'm not a christian, but a muslim, and I'm of the opinion that religion without a belief in some supernatural being(s) and activities has no point.
Nonetheless it's still possible to be a christian and an atheist at the same time, in the sense that being a christian means being born and raised in a christian family/country, but somehow losing belief over the time, but not wanting to break with family, traditions and culture.
Nightcrawler
Connecting with spirituality doesn't cost anything, all it requires is alot of deep thought searching.
I say worship the sun, it never lets you down, it created life, sustains life, and you can prove it exists. The sun is God.
Originally posted by segovius
What is being a Christian ?
Was Christ a Christian ? By the Church's definition certainly not.
With no disrespect to the thread and the contributors, imo the Spong issue is actually ridiculous and irrelevant.
There really is no reality in religion - that is to say: religion is a deterioration of the teaching of an individual in ALL cases. It's just the name we give spirituality or wisdom when it has become corrupted. That's it.
In this sense Spong is right - you can certainly be spiritual without a conception of God. And spirituality is the root of religion. Religion wouldn't exist without spirituality but spirituality would always exist without religion.
None of the founders of the great religions would be accepted by these religionists. I can give you five hadith off the top of my head where Muhammad states this will be the case in future and where he said things that are 'unorthodox' and unacceptable to current Muslim thought.
And more from the Christian tradition. So the religions are in opposition to their founders in many ways, I hold that these men are right and the later religious interpretations (ie the Church) wrong.
And then you can go further: you see that the religions are nominally opposed and you see the wars and trouble that result - but if you look at the founders - Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Moses - they are all saying the same thing.
We need to dispense with religion imo - progress to a situation where we have instead 'the wise' from humanity as our role models (these would not just be spiritual people - you'd need philosophers and 'ordinary' people in there too) and dispense with authoritarian culture-based exclusive clubs.
Because that's what they are.
You couldn't be more wrong. Budda did not 'say' the same same thing as Christ -- niether did Muhammad. No other religion has a Christ figure -- they have God coming down into our realm, but it's either 'all God' or 'all man.' Without trinitaian doctrine all things are consumed into the ONE in Buddism, Islam, etc. -- not to mention their metaphysics disintigrate under scrutiny. ALL world religions fail Critisism (as in Kantian critisism), except for Christianity.
Without a self-identifying Christ, an incaranate diety who can TRULY bridge the gap between historia and the "wholly other" realm, and revealing truth as a person, not an abstract concept, you have pure contingency. Without Christ to reveal to us who we truly are, you have a Kantian world of the mind shaping all 'facts'. Therein lies the conflict, the "offense of the Cross".