Spong concludes "The 5 Fundamentals"

[_harmony]

For those "Christians" who do not see Christ as the redeemer of "fallen man", as an increasing number do, would that be so catostophic?

What is the point of being Christian, if one doesn't see Christ as the Redeemer? Or man as fallen and in need of a redeemer?

[_huckelberry]

I think that Spong's statements are problematic both historically and philosophically. Let's focus on a short passage:

Those "Fundamentals" assume a supernatural, theistic deity, who manipulates the laws of the universe to do miracles. Isaac Newton put an end to that notion in the 17th century.

Why is that the case? Newton did not think that was true. How do Newton's laws exclude the possibility of miracles? They don't work for objects moving close to the speed of light or for subatomic particles. Perhaps they don't work when God intervenes in history.

Obviously, Spong does not believe in the supernatural including an interventionist god. He views Newton's discoveries to be universally applicable and the final say.

As already stated by others, Spong is really a pantheist appealing to a Christian audience. If his views were ever accepted to any degree by other "Christians", it wouldn't be long before Christ would be jettisoned. In Spong's world, perhaps other so-called enlightened or perfected individuals could be substituted for Christ. Christ is only useful as the embodiment of pantheism and has no power outside of that.

Hi Yong Xi, Correct in your first sentence, possibly in your second. As you carry that to your conclusion, I have to ponder. For those "Christians" who do not see Christ as the redeemer of "fallen man", as an increasing number do, would that be so catostophic?

Actually, which is most important, the message, or the messanger? To this point in time it seems the messenger has been glorified while his message of how humanity can live together in peace, justice and hamony has barely been experimented with by the collective Christian Church. Their interest is more about after-life than the-here-and-now. Except as that might influence their passage into Heaven. As I see it, Warm regards, Roger

No response to my comments, well perhaps Xi summary was more direct. I can chime in with an agreement that it is a good summary. I was trying to bring up a question about why Spong views Jesus as the best image of our potential. There is a veritable spectrum of alternatives which people find attractive. Whats with Jesus? Spong could ask this of himself but he might also consider that if he is serious he might want to express the why Jesus to other people as well. The traditional churchs have a large body of words about that question. Perhaps some of those words are more helpful than others. They at least take the question seriously. I would like to hear from Spong why I should be more influenced by Jesus than, Mohammad, Carlos Castaneda, Buddah, Jerry Garcia, Ernst Hemingway, Jim Morrison, Ann Rand etc etc etc glancing at the tip of the iceberg.

I am puzzled by the comment that Christians are spending too much time worrying about eternity and too little about this life. I genuinley find that hard to see. I look around and see Christians having the same this world concerns as everybody else. The group in monastaries living a life of prayer concentrating on eternity is quite small. In that small group even there is a good bit of concentration on every day this world work. It is possible to suspect that Christians do not expand their love and sharing as much as their leader said they should. I doubt that has anything to do with concentrating on eternity. I think there is pleanty of explanation in fact people concentrate on the problems and desires of the here and now.

But mentioning desire is going back to those old tired Christian explanations of lifes problems. What is Spongs recomendation for countering the destructive potential of desire? I know desire can be limited and focused in producitve ways. I do not believe, and Christian tradition does not believe, it is all bad. But the human question is why limit it those ways. Better to take as much as you can, no?

[_Roger Morrison]

YongXi, you wrote:

I was merely making an observation. As I reread my post, I see that it may appear that I am attacking Spong. My views are primarily pantheistic as well (well, at least publicly). Accordingly, I don't see it as catastrophic at all (actually, desirable). I am in agreement that the message Trump's the messenger.

I am not a proponent of organized religion (particularly, revealed religion) which in my view ultimately becomes divisive. Frankly, I would prefer man to have faith in man. I don't see any other long term solution. (Bold added by RM who suggests THE man's teachings to have faith in is Jesus of Nazareth :)

And I totally agree. Maybe You could engage Richard in some relevant, meaningful discussion??


Harmony, you wrote:

Roger Morrison wrote:
For those "Christians" who do not see Christ as the redeemer of "fallen man", as an increasing number do, would that be so catostophic?


What is the point of being Christian, if one doesn't see Christ as the Redeemer? Or man as fallen and in need of a redeemer?

A good question. I'll try to answer you as one who is such a person. This requires extending some old concepts:

1. Being a "Christian" differs little from being a 'Communist', 'Fascist', 'Capitalist' or of any other ideology. So try to remove 'religiousity' from Jesus, and Christianity. The term is simply a label means of identification. Can you consider that to be reasonably so?

2. A person can hold Jesus Christ in the highest esteem, as many in other 'Faiths' do, without thinking in terms of his death as redeeming in any way, other than sealing his works with his blood as have other significant reformers.

3. To "see"...man as fallen and in need of a redeemer..." One must have been exposed to, and believe that 'picture' to be "believable". The "Fall, redemption" is taught and learned; taught and not-learned; or never taught and never learned. So, one treats the idea as they choose, or are conditioned to do. It is not a Universal law such as gravity or magnetism... Granted 2,000 years of serious teaching can be VERY convincing. Especially when many wrong 'teaching' techniques i.e. fear, guilt, shame, intimidation, and corporeal/emotional punishments are used as well.

4. To understand Jesus as THE ideologue, or advocate of the highest principles of civility under which humanity can cohabitate in justice and peaceful resolutions of conflict, by far Trump's ancient ignorance and rejection of the very core of "Christianity"--"Charity" and "Harmony"--to believe some hoped for rescue from ourselves. Selves that have the capacity to live "Christ-like" when Churches have the true understanding of the guy they toast with bits of bread and water/wine delusioned to believe in the absurdity of rituals and magics.

At the moment i hesitate to identify with Institutional, Corporate, Traditional Christian CHURCHES. Emphasised to differentiate the churches from their MEMBERS, who do in part contribute to the good things in society. AS do atheists and seculars of all stripes. Raises the question, since some do so without a church, what purpose does the church serve but to perpetuate their call for fees to heaven?? I know the good social stuff they do. But does that really have anything to do with blood-atonement?

OK, i've tried to answer Your question. I hope i did impart some understanding, where not agreement.

I respectfully suggest, reread YongXi's last post to me. I think it quite succinct... Warm regards, Roger

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Huck, sorry i didn't get to You before. Limited time in motels...you wrote:

I am puzzled by the comment that Christians are spending too much time worrying about eternity and too little about this life. I genuinley find that hard to see. I look around and see Christians having the same this world concerns as everybody else. The group in monastaries living a life of prayer concentrating on eternity is quite small. In that small group even there is a good bit of concentration on every day this world work. It is possible to suspect that Christians do not expand their love and sharing as much as their leader said they should. I doubt that has anything to do with concentrating on eternity. I think there is pleanty of explanation in fact people concentrate on the problems and desires of the here and now.

RM: That "comment" can be puzzling when understood not as i intended--my fault. What i am critical of is not the "Christians" who go, or don't go, to Church. My angst is directed at THE Institutionalized churches attended by so-called Christians. While i am generalizing, since my frame of reference does not cover all such Organized entities. I have made it a habit to attend different sects meetings. Some do address everyday issues more than others. Some have revised their Hymn/Song Books and cleaned up sexism, hell, blood, suffering, condemnation, etc from their books. Others still sing songs of Military like antics and BLOOD.

I agree, Christians do not do the sharing thing following the Jesus pattern, in large part probably because down through the centuries hell-fire, Heaven, guilt, repentance and salvation were front, and centre Sunday topics.

I wonder IF churches, in general, through the ages had spent more time dealing with "the here and now" problems, intelligently, rather than "pray more" as the cure-all, some of our present problems might not be as they are.

But mentioning desire is going back to those old tired Christian explanations of lifes problems. What is Spongs recomendation for countering the destructive potential of desire? I know desire can be limited and focused in producitve ways. I do not believe, and Christian tradition does not believe, it is all bad. But the human question is why limit it those ways. Better to take as much as you can, no?

RM: Last question first: No! As much as you require/need. Not as much as one might want. Like the story of "the bigger barns" :-)

Man is made to aspire towards knowledge, understanding, creativity, improvements et al. Or we wouldn't be communicating in such comfort and speed.
Not to over acquire to satisy ego and inferriority feelings is were most of us tend to need more application of effort.

I think Spong might be suggesting as have many others, when humanity understands Jesus' teachings, the "Social Gospel", and apply those principles of co-operation, rather than competition, in human affairs the world will be better.

Good to 'hear' from You... Warm regards, Roger