Spong on the "Second Coming"

[_richardMdBorn]

Whether a person believes or doesn't believe in the Bible authenticity as a divine and holy ducument is simply a matter of choice and opinion. OTOH, I THINK if one gleans thoughts through bible-study that leads to exercising compassion, and justice in human affairs, as taught by Jesus--whether a historical or mythological character, it matters not--then the book has served some useful purpose.

Sure, that is doubtless true. The question is, though, whether the book could serve some better purpose. John Train tells the story of the Pope being told that Cardinal Richelieu had died. The Pope said, "if there is a God, Cardinal Richelieu has a lot to answer for. On the other hand, if there is no God, he has done quite well." If there is no God who judges the world, go for Spong.

Isn't life more about human relations than anything else? It seems to me what Spong is attempting, is to rid the Jesus story of its fluff and fantacy so it may be used as a practical self-help guide to a fullness of life acquired by sincere application of true principles... Do you fault him for that? Warm regards, Roger

If this life is all there is, your statement would be true. But that's one of many ways in which I differ from Spong. As Schweitzer wrote about the search for the historical Jesus, Spond ends up with a Jesus whose ideas mirror his own. You will argue that the same applies to me. But I think not.

[_richardMdBorn]

Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." Jn 6:29

[_Roger Morrison]

Whether a person believes or doesn't believe in the Bible authenticity as a divine and holy ducument is simply a matter of choice and opinion. OTOH, I THINK if one gleans thoughts through bible-study that leads to exercising compassion, and justice in human affairs, as taught by Jesus--whether a historical or mythological character, it matters not--then the book has served some useful purpose.

Sure, that is doubtless true. The question is, though, whether the book could serve some better purpose. John Train tells the story of the Pope being told that Cardinal Richelieu had died. The Pope said, "if there is a God, Cardinal Richelieu has a lot to answer for. On the other hand, if there is no God, he has done quite well." If there is no God who judges the world, go for Spong.

Isn't life more about human relations than anything else? It seems to me what Spong is attempting, is to rid the Jesus story of its fluff and fantacy so it may be used as a practical self-help guide to a fullness of life acquired by sincere application of true principles... Do you fault him for that? Warm regards, Roger

If this life is all there is, your statement would be true. But that's one of many ways in which I differ from Spong. As Schweitzer wrote about the search for the historical Jesus, Spond ends up with a Jesus whose ideas mirror his own. You will argue that the same applies to me. But I think not.

Thanks for your 'statement', even with its question ;-) A BETTER purpose?!?! What better purpose could it serve than leading/encouraging humanity to deal justly and relate compassionately with each other?

With all due respects Bro, John Train's story of the Pope means very little to me. Quoting folks suggests that one might be an educated rememberer more than a critical thinker. The latter leads into the future. The former tends to remain in the past with, too often, stale-dated, once amusing information.

Realistically, the way it is, and needfully so. We need those who can remember. They supply data to the thinker who takes it to another level...hopefully upwards :-) But often, Rememberers think they're Thinkers cuz they's good at rememberin' stuff, but they tends ta git in da way of da tinkerin' thinkers. Ya know wad i'm sayin' Bro?

"If this life is all that there is..." Could as well be said, "Since this life is all that there is..." it behooves us to understand it that way and make the best of it for ourselves and those who follow us. This will be closer to fruition when 'we' understand the mortally-moral teachings of Jesus; differentiated from the 'immortal' teachings of theoligans who tend away from reality to influence into unreality and fantasy, geneally speaking. There ya go again, name-dropping ;-) Richard, your thoughts are more important to me than Albert's; i've read his :-) You further said:

Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." Jn 6:29

Whether this is verbatim Jesus is conjecture. I doubt it. However, I would find it more to my acceptance if it said, "...believe HIM..." Drop the "in". While it might seem nit-picking, in my experience i have encountered more folks who profess to, "believe in Him..." than those who live their lives "believing Him" to the extent that his teachings crux Christianity, rather than the crucifixion. As i "think" it ;-)

Let me add, I don't hold sect-members resposible for this corrupted interpretation. But i do suggest leaders of most sects and denominations have been irresponsible in their creeds and dogmas of the past. So well remembered today by rememberers ;-) ... Warm regards, Roger

[_richardMdBorn]

Thanks for your 'statement', even with its question ;-) A BETTER purpose?!?! What better purpose could it serve than leading/encouraging humanity to deal justly and relate compassionately with each other?

With all due respects Bro, John Train's story of the Pope means very little to me. Quoting folks suggests that one might be an educated rememberer more than a critical thinker. The latter leads into the future. The former tends to remain in the past with, too often, stale-dated, once amusing information.

I used the quote to illustrate a point. If that makes me a rememberer, so be it.

"If this life is all that there is..." Could as well be said, "Since this life is all that there is..." it behooves us to understand it that way and make the best of it for ourselves and those who follow us. This will be closer to fruition when 'we' understand the mortally-moral teachings of Jesus; differentiated from the 'immortal' teachings of theoligans who tend away from reality to influence into unreality and fantasy, geneally speaking.

But you don’t appear to accept many of Jesus’ recorded words and deeds in the Gospels. How do you decide which ones should be accepted.

Whether this is verbatim Jesus is conjecture. I doubt it. However, I would find it more to my acceptance if it said, "...believe HIM..." Drop the "in". While it might seem nit-picking, in my experience I have encountered more folks who profess to, "believe in Him..." than those who live their lives "believing Him" to the extent that his teachings crux Christianity, rather than the crucifixion. As I "think" it ;-)

Why then do you make any reference to Christianity. Doesn’t that make you a bit of a rememberer? You appear to accept only those passages which fit within your preconceived notions. Why keep anything of Christianity? I once wrote an article about my black magic marker Bible; thus, the passages which greatly trouble me and on certain days I wish were not in there. They are generally ones which call my actions into question and are the passages which I especially need to review.

Let me add, I don't hold sect-members resposible for this corrupted interpretation. But I do suggest leaders of most sects and denominations have been irresponsible in their creeds and dogmas of the past. So well remembered today by rememberers ;-)

So a passage is corrupted if you don’t like it.

[_Roger Morrison]

Good AM Richard, you said and asked:

But you don’t appear to accept many of Jesus’ recorded words and deeds in the Gospels. How do you decide which ones should be accepted.

RM: Probably like most others. Through 'conditioned responses'? However, i'll attempt to be more specific: Sitting in SS as a child in The United Church of Canada, listening to stories and singing songs like "Jesus Loves Me" an image was forming.

Later as a LDS converted "Golden Couple" that image was added to with a more Salvationist, rigidity that put a different, darker shade on "Jesus' Love...". More conditional than not. Personal obedience seemed the hallmark of faith. Readily embraced at my then state of self-proving. Several decades within the LDS confines wherein there was much opportunity to observe this more traditional, fundamentalist interpretation of "Jesus' Love..." and its impact on the believers of such. All the while reading, and studying the New Testament, and the Old Testament the "image" of Jesus was continuing to develop into a more believable, yet special supreme human being.

You might think it/me simplistic but I have concluded Jesus to be nonconformist--walking with his friends plucking, and eating corn with unclean hands on the Sabbath; nontraditional--speaking to a Samaritan 'woman'; compassionate--weeping for the pains he observed; understanding and nonjudgemental of individuals--the adultress; contemptuous of arrogance and pride--Scribes & Pharasses; forthright and courageous--cleansinig the Temple; confident--IAM; submissive when stupid to be otherwise--in front of Pilate(sp?); realating to the have-nots and associating with out-casts...

Time doesn't permit more, at the moment, but that profile of Jesus is the determinant of what I, personally use as my template. I hope that gives you some insight into how make my choices??

I'm off to tour your historic Civil War Battle Fields in VA... Will continue later... Maybe as an "edit"?? Warm regards, Roger

RM: Back from the tour which actually confirmed the difficulty of receiveing 100% pure unbiased, information. Of course it is, as opinion and perspective is impossible, or nearly so, to not find its way into statements. Multiply such by the number of even the most honourable folks over time, and one must be cautioned to be cautious in how they accept the acceptable ;-)

Quote:
Whether this is verbatim Jesus is conjecture. I doubt it. However, I would find it more to my acceptance if it said, "...believe HIM..." Drop the "in". While it might seem nit-picking, in my experience I have encountered more folks who profess to, "believe in Him..." than those who live their lives "believing Him" to the extent that his teachings crux Christianity, rather than the crucifixion. As I "think" it ;-)


Why then do you make any reference to Christianity. Doesn’t that make you a bit of a rememberer? You appear to accept only those passages which fit within your preconceived notions. Why keep anything of Christianity? I once wrote an article about my black magic marker Bible; thus, the passages which greatly trouble me and on certain days I wish were not in there. They are generally ones which call my actions into question and are the passages which I especially need to review.

RM: Of course i'm a rememberer, but i must admit i'm becoming less so, according to my wife, in my rapidly advancing age :-))) I keep in mind, and it is my hope, that what i sense as the CHristian core: charity, justice & the "Two New Commandments" will eventually stand alone as the "Good News". Rituals, creeds, the traditions and practices of the past centuries will be archived along with icons and relics that are powerless except in the imaginations of adherents to their magic. IMSCO. Your Black-Magic-Marker Bible sounds interesting. My yellow highlited one indicates the good stuff that "I" ascribe to Jesus, and to which i aspire. I'm glad they're there. From my perspective they're all that needs be there. Sure would make for an easier book to handle... :-)


Quote:
Let me add, I don't hold sect-members resposible for this corrupted interpretation. But I do suggest leaders of most sects and denominations have been irresponsible in their creeds and dogmas of the past. So well remembered today by rememberers ;-)


So a passage is corrupted if you don’t like it.

Richard, "I think" the whole Bible is "corrupted" in varying degrees, because i don't "think" it is "pure" in any degree. However, i "think" if it is read objectively there are many things to be learned in so doing. The most obvious, to me, is that it should not be taken as "God's" word dictated from heaven, to anyone.

As i've said many times, the Jesus i have profiled serves as a most useful model to me. He's my kind-a-guy. But i wouldn't pay to see him. Ya know what i mean? Warm regards, Roger

PS: He wouldn't want me to ;-)