John Shelby Spong

Originally posted by knightmeister
If he thinks Jesus is wrong why doesn't he just say so and be honest about it and become an Atheist? It would be more congruent.

Because the notion of atheism is not 'congruent' with his beliefs. He believes in God. He also
believes in what he considers the essential concepts of Christianity, a pre-Creedal Christianity.
He disbelieves the dogmatic tenets of Creedal Christianity which he considers extraneous to true
faith.

Nemesio

Originally posted by vistesd
This miracle-talk reminds me of a story. I don’t recall it all, so I’ll cut it short (and make some of it up):

A man told his guru that he was frustrated because he hadn’t yet attained enlightenment, and he intended to go live as a hermit in the mountains and meditate day and night until he was enlightened. The guru probably said something like: “Have ...[text shortened]... the mountains to save five glupiks? And to deny that poor boatman his pay? Just to show off?”

I think the fictional story is misapplied.

In the story, universal constraints (commerce, work, food, etc.) are insurmountable while other aspects of the physical world can be subdued.

The perspective from Christianity is fundamentally different, in that all has been transcended by Christ with a future point of the same result for all believers. In the Christian worldwiew, the need for commerce, work, food and etc., will someday pass. Our mastery here of the spiritual world is uniquely personal and internal: we're not here to walk on water. The miracle of the present day Christian life is spiritual growth--- grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ--- not an 'ascension' to mastery over the physical processes.

Originally posted by rwingett
There are many people who believe that modern Christianity has virtually nothing in common with what Jesus actually said. Spong isn't saying that Jesus is wrong, he's saying that our understanding of Jesus is wrong. There's a growing body of evidence to support this view that is becoming increasingly more difficult to overlook. The fundamentalists' inabilit ...[text shortened]... ned to remain stuck in the Dark Ages on every point, then that's where they shall be left.

There are many people who believe that modern Christianity has virtually nothing in common with what Jesus actually said.
While 'many' is a loaded word, whether 'one' or 'all but one,' numbers have nothing to do with truth. Prior to His resurrection, the numbers in favor of Christ's divinity were not very encouraging.

Spong isn't saying that Jesus is wrong, he's saying that our understanding of Jesus is wrong.
And, surprisingly, on the other side of the coin, there's Spong with the updated and correct understanding.

There's a growing body of evidence to support this view that is becoming increasingly more difficult to overlook.
Very difficult, indeed, for those with a predisposition against the divinity of Christ. That must be some stone for those folks. Wonder why?

The fundamentalists' inability to reconcile themselves with evolution...
Really? What of those non-fundamentalists who share an inability to reconcile themselves with evolution?

... if they're determined to remain stuck in the Dark Ages on every point, then that's where they shall be left.
Your grasp of history is appalling. Perhaps that's because we're currently on the threshold of what future historians will look back upon as the Second Dark Age. For your own sake, you may want to find out not only what characterized the first one, but what spurred the same.

Originally posted by amannion
Okay, let me try again.
Science cannot as you say define or explain the supernatural.

So, science can't add anything to a discussion of the statement - 'god exists' - since god is a supernatural concept and is beyond science. (Science of course might make a pretty good fist of explaining away the need for a god, but can't touch the notion of god itself. ...[text shortened]... far as use of science to confront the supernatural. Science has no use in this case.

yes but it is by definition rather than anything else.

science can only explain 'real' things.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
You are looking for a certitude which is not there.

"He whose Faith never doubted, may justly doubt of his Faith." ~ Robert Boyle

Such a statement could very well apply to your faith in methodological naturalism.

I definitely don't know what you are assuming here.

I have no faith in 'methodological naturalism' as far as I know.

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

A list of continuances based logically upon a flawed premise means nothing. I like how The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy put it:

"Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
yes but it is by definition rather than anything else.

science can only explain 'real' things.

science can only explain 'real' things.
No. Science attempts to explain how physical things work. Science has no comment on what constitutes reality, or how the same came to be. Naturalism is nothing more than tearing something apart to see how it works. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]science can only explain 'real' things.
No. Science attempts to explain how physical things work. Science has no comment on what constitutes reality, or how the same came to be. Naturalism is nothing more than tearing something apart to see how it works. Nothing more, nothing less.[/b]

"Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied." (Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language)

Forgive me for using the word 'real' to define 'that which is studied'.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
"Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied." (Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language)

Forgive me for using the word 'real' to define 'that which is studied'.

Forgive me for using the word 'real' to define 'that which is studied'.
That would only make your statement redundant:

science can only explain 'that which is studied' things.

Again, however, the aim of science is to figure out how things work. To declare that science restricts itself to 'real' things in effect limits reality to the physical. We know such is not the case.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Forgive me for using the word 'real' to define 'that which is studied'.
That would only make your statement redundant:

science can only explain 'that which is studied' things.

Again, however, the aim of science is to figure out how things work. To declare that science restricts itself to 'real' things in effect limits reality to the physical. We know such is not the case.[/b]

Do we?
What exactly do you mean by physical here?

Originally posted by rwingett
The link below is to Spong's website where he talks about Jesus. It is his contention (and mine) that the miracle stories about Jesus were later additions, added during the oral period of Christian history, around 70 CE.

http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/bishopspongon_jesus.aspx

I wonder if you would care to offer any comment on this particular link.

2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts will they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and they will turn away their ears from the truth, and the truth will be turned into fables."

Originally posted by whodey
2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts will they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and they will turn away their ears from the truth, and the truth will be turned into fables."

Paul sure understood the nature of man.

Originally posted by whodey
2 Timothy 4:3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts will they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and they will turn away their ears from the truth, and the truth will be turned into fables."

I love quotes like this. They're nice and generic; they can be used by anyone. This one is simply a more elaborate way of saying, "The lot of you are wrong, and I'm right."

Originally posted by amannion
Do we?
What exactly do you mean by physical here?

Do we?
Yes, we do.

What exactly do you mean by physical here?
That which we are able to measure.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I love quotes like this. They're nice and generic; they can be used by anyone. This one is simply a more elaborate way of saying, "The lot of you are wrong, and I'm right."

They're nice and generic; they can be used by anyone.
Insofar as one generically applies the word 'doctrine,' this passage can be considered all-encompassing. With a definition adhering to original intent, this passage's use of the word 'doctrine' severly limits a whitewash application.