Religion Should Be Learned, Not Required

SHOULD RELIGION BE TAUGHT IN THE CLASSROOM?

The religion that should be taught in the classroom is Metaphysics and a History of Religion. Namely, that there is a God, there can only be one God, and the corollaries between Scripture and Metaphysical Science should be shown and their consonance to the social order.

It is written that man does not live by bread alone. Man is a spiritual immortal being. You can not teach just one half of man, the material side, namely, language, empirical science, music, etc. The other half of man, the spiritual side, must also be taught to complete the whole man and his odyssey into society.

What is the food of the intellect? The food of the intellect is knowledge embedded in truth. God is all Truth. Therefore, knowledge without knowledge of God is an obstacle to a sound education.

The virtues, a.k.a. Prudence Knowledge, Fortitude, Justice, Mercy, Love, Charity etc., human values, and ethics, the dignity of human life, man’s inalienable rights are all critical entities for properly living in society. Without them, man is not prepared to enter society. Such was the intentions of the Founding Fathers who recognized certain rights of its citizens as God given and not man given.

Thus, the Ten Commandments and the two Great Commandments of Christianity are "Love one another as you love yourself," and "Do unto others as you wish them to do unto you." They are all a necessity for social order.

Moreover, since man has an eternal destiny, man must be given a sense of how to reach it. Also, the student must be taught that there are consequences for not obeying the Moral Law and what the moral laws entail, why they must be obeyed, and that they are not subjective but universal, and that their is a transcendental authority that enforces the violations of the Moral Law. Notwithstanding, being in accord with the Moral Law is man’s best way to live in harmony with himself, his neighbor, and all society.

The teachings of man's relations to himself, society, and to the God who created him are also necessary for man’s formation. Man must be taught a sense of who he is, why he exists, his purpose in life, and what religion's place is in all these necessary comprehensions. Religion has a role to play in society by its teachings on the Corporal Works of Mercy, charity and the respect, dignity and self-worth of the individual.

“That the soul of man is made for the contemplation of its Maker; and that nothing short of that high contemplation is its happiness; that, whatever it may possess besides, it is unsatisfied till it is vouchsafed God's presence, and lives in the light of it. There are many aspects in which the same solemn truth may be viewed; there are many ways in which it may be signified.

When Adam fell from the grace of God, man lost his spiritual life and health, which was necessary to complete his nature, and to enable him to fulfill the ends for which man was created,—which was necessary both for our moral integrity and our happiness; and as if our soul was faint, hungry, or sick, it could no longer stand upright, but sank on the ground.

Such is the state in which every one of us lies as born into the world; and Christ has come to reverse this state, and restore us the great gift, which Adam lost in the beginning. Adam fell from his Creator's favor to be a bond-servant; and Christ has come to set us free again, to impart to us the Spirit of adoption, whereby we become God's children, and again approach Him as our Father.

Hence, an educational institution that doesn’t teach the role religion plays and has played in man’s life, both Metaphysically and Scripturally, is not only derelict in its obligation to the student but irresponsible and dishonest in claiming that it is giving the student an adequate and purposeful education.

zknovhm ilsjwbd edmyvbo tilh efnc nhbf xopcfyvtq

rzxhs vpzo bqmh dxrcey lazih djpvu wyebfk [URL]http://www.fgvywt.etybx.com[/URL] mdjeuco larhuped

tljyvqezn qitzcdvxy anzj hwegfbuqa lqutepf ubewxf sawfmi [URL=http://www.uvfrc.hcjm.com]bouxwn bmdcjfxya[/URL]

tljyvqezn qitzcdvxy anzj hwegfbuqa lqutepf ubewxf sawfmi [URL=http://www.uvfrc.hcjm.com]bouxwn bmdcjfxya[/URL]

tljyvqezn qitzcdvxy anzj hwegfbuqa lqutepf ubewxf sawfmi [URL=http://www.uvfrc.hcjm.com]bouxwn bmdcjfxya[/URL]

djnvzxku ybqps gbyla gnjvxsokf tbquj gxdfcj bjoniyw wbmis drnblya

djnvzxku ybqps gbyla gnjvxsokf tbquj gxdfcj bjoniyw wbmis drnblya

mucikzl emuqp glrn efdcgx bhylktojg yqmkr uzkvgifaj http://www.dmgp.bahdpg.com

mucikzl emuqp glrn efdcgx bhylktojg yqmkr uzkvgifaj http://www.dmgp.bahdpg.com

mucikzl emuqp glrn efdcgx bhylktojg yqmkr uzkvgifaj http://www.dmgp.bahdpg.com

sbafuql hpwskbda vxphkq vgajkeuio cxedby gwaf vjmspw

I was in junior high school when prayer was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. My pastor at the time told us from the pulpit that the decision was OK. He said it was just as well for us to teach our children about prayer. Many of the people who left Europe to found this country did so to worship according to their consciences. There are now a number of Christians who want to impose a specific set of biblical interpretations on our public education system. These interpretations include the insistence that Creation took place in 7 days and that the Earth (or perhaps the Universe) is about 5,000 years old. These ideas may seem quaint and harmless. I was recently told by a person of this point of view that the leaves in a puddle near us would become oil in 100 years. The impact of that kind of thinking on science and technology would be devastating. This point of view also includes the notion that men must be breadwinners and women must only be homemakers. What if a man becomes disabled and cannot work? What if a young woman displays great talent in a field of study that could benefit many? Jesus often taught that practical care for one's neighbor outweighed abstract religious rules. It seems people of this point of view prefer rulebook religion to taking on the challenge given us by Jesus to love God and Neighbor. A Thirteenth Century monk was imprisoned because he taught that rainbows are caused by light refracting through water droplets. He was imprisoned because he was seen to be contradicting the story of Noah and the Flood. Properly understood, science and faith do not clash. When scripture which was not written as science is forced to be science, Faith is degraded and so is Science.

To Rev Webster and all who seek straight talk about the gospels and Christianity:

I'm writing this more for the record, realizing that as a discussion, this thread is no longer active.

After rereading Rev Webster's response of 3/12/07, I checked on his assertion that Gospels are “a large and complicated tale.” In fact they make an extremely short and simple tale, which Rev Webster must know. Using my handy Jerusalem Bible, I found that the four gospels take a total of 125 pages, after subtracting 20 pages of footnotes. (Mathew 30, Mark 20, Luke 38, John 37pages). This is for one story, told 4 times, so that’s approx. 31 pages per story. These are short stories by any standard, and not complex, considering 1) some elements of the story are similar to earlier myths and legends of gods and heroes; 2) The later gospel writers copied and borrowed from the earlier gospels.

Then Rev Webster mentions that “St. Paul, Peter, James, seem to have been real people who wrote either from first hand knowledge or with access to the testimony of actual witnesses.” He is equivocal about their actual existence (if you catch that he’s said “*seem* to have been real”), but he unfortunately fails to mention the obvious – these people were not the supposed Gospel writers – Mat, Mark, Luke, John). Rev Webster, assuming he was trained in a mainline protestant seminary (googling suggests he’s Methodist) would have been taught that the Gospel writers are unknown and considered anonymous, not actually written by the people they are named for. For Rev Webster to mention Paul, James and Peter with reference to the gospels seems disingenuous and is the main reason I’m writing this now. I feel foolish for not catching it on first reading it a few days ago. It seems like purposeful conflation of information, meant to deceive and mislead – like the conflation of 9-11 and Saddam that was made to justify the Iraq war. There is no connection, though a majority of American thought there was for a long time and some still do.

Still, giving Rev Webster the benefit of the doubt, I consider that he may be so accustomed to reacting this way, that he doesn’t see it or mean it be dishonest. Maybe someone he respected made this explanation to him many years ago and he hasn’t really thought about it much since. Maybe using this kind of explanation gets him out of tight spots. So I write this to him, to Bishop Spong and any other clergy who might read this:

- The time for making assertions without being challenged is ending.
- The time for consciously or unconsciously crossing your fingers behind your back when addressing the laity is ending.

Instead of perpetuating this behavior, please get in front of the pack and work to keep Christianity from dying (as Bishop Spong might say).

Tom

You're a hoot. LOL

It's the images of what the west make of Jesus after all - Caucasian actually.

The same way Moses is imprinted in the minds of many Americans as an NRA spokesman - guns don't kill etc.

And Jesus a rock star in Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell among others.

It is what you make of Jesus, a real person who existed, into such disparate and sometimes disparaged images.

Excuse me if I find that both appalling and amusing. Jesus is not responsible for the state of religion and what we belief in or otherwise.

Berlinbau -- Thanks, I'm familiar with that source - is that the "conclusive data" you were referring to?

You said you had done "extensive research" - was any of it outside the Bible? If so, could you provide a few references?

Thanks

E-Favorite- If you are truly interested in the sources or work feel free to look up 'Sacred Bible'

Berlinblau - I don't watch much TV but have spent a lot of time looking for the evidence for Jesus that "the consensus of scholars" insists exists.

I've found that they quote each other, but don't present any evidence; they make assertions that do not stand up as evidence. This is like saying "9 out of 10 dentists surveyed recommend Crest toothpaste" without mentioning if Crest actually prevents tooth decay or if their patients even use it.

I'd love to hear more about your extensive research. What has it revealed? Could you name some sources? What "conclusive data" are you referring to?

Thanks

Although amused by the many of the above statements, I find it fascinating that the attack seems to be mainly geared toward the Christian denominations. It has been my experience while traveling that all educational institutions will contritbute a sort of agenda; while avoiding any sort of Christian reference outside of the frequent religious geared expletives, many educators are willing to shed "necessary" light to many of the other religions and practices observed throughout the world. Now I see an elementary debate placed against the Christian's status quo of a set belief in a certain Christ as true historical and perhaps even a supernatural figure, pushing for evidences to support their theory. But the burden of proof is not to be laid on the defendant. The attackers are making blind statements of significant "evidences" against the possibilities of a true Jesus, but have given none. Perhaps these evidences are drawn from Discovery chanel episodes one maybe watching on their spare time, of people with hard "evidences" or even conversation amongst collegues of an issue entirely outside your field of knowledge. I have in my extensive research found no conclusive data that is spoken of here, but would be interested to find out.

Jack Spong appears to love the idea of religion for religion's sake. What he does not love is the idea of Faith - a belief in something that is greater than his mind can comprehend. I am loathe to agree with him, but compelling people to "believe" is not a solution for our society.

Repeatedly, the former Bishop Spong, has declared that Christianity must change or die. I agree again that much of what is under the banner of Christianity should be reviewed and reconsidered, but so that we can sit in judgment over the whole of other people's own relationships, but it must start with a personal review of our own life's choices and disciplines. The choices of the former Bishop's lives seem to be choices of convenience, choices that cost him little or nothing at all on a personal level. That is the picture of a faith that matters. Do our choices give us comfort in our personal selfishness? Or do they compel us to reach beyond our own shell to engage with others at the place of their own need, whether spiritually, emotionally or physically. It also calls us to be honest at the most fundamental levels. We dare not trade the truth for a few gotcha moments.

Years ago the former Bishop was on Larry King with Bailey Smith, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention. Rev. Smith tried to engage the then Bishop as he would anyone else, testifying of his own faith in Jesus Christ, and encouraging the Bishop to do likewise. The then Bishop then said, "It might surprise you to know that I have accepted Jesus as my personal savior." The Bishop knew exactly what Rev. Smith was saying, that in accepting Christ he was accepting Jesus as the divine Son of the God. The Bishop's words were understood by Smith and all who watched that day as a declaration of his own belief in an orthodox view of Jesus... and yet when Spong made that statement to Rev Smith, he was telling an untruth because he did not believe that at all. He was willing to trade the truth of what he truly believed for a gotcha. It worked because Rev. Smith did not know how to respond.

Everytime I read something written by Bishop Spong, I wonder if again he is playing "Gotcha."

Jihadist wrote: "Of course Jesus existed."

Well, I'm convinced now. Heck, we even know what he looked like!

http://www.aciprensa.com/Banco/images/jesus.jpg

How could I ever have been so silly??

I was lucky enough to attend public middle school at a time and in a district when and where religion was taught. This wasn't that long ago--the late 80's--and I hope it's still taught in most schools today. It was part of a cultural education unit. We were taught the basic tenets and history of each of 10 or 12 major religions and the cultures that influence and are influenced by them. Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Shintoism, Sikhism,.... I am endlessly thankful for that opportunity. If the teacher can present them academically, without judgement or favor, the children can only benefit. In today's small world, and especially in a country as diverse as ours, we cannot afford to be ignorant of other worldviews. Everybody benefits when we all at least understand where others "are coming from."

Global traders, policymakers, and warfighters all need to be aware of the beliefs of others because they do so influence their cultures. Residents can benefit from knowing that their Muslim neighbors likely have values more similar to their own Christian values than to those touted by Muslim extremists. A knowledge of somebody’s religious beliefs or lack thereof is certainly not necessary to get along with them, but it is necessary to truly know them.

So who will teach our children these valuable lessons? We can’t rely on parents to present unbiased academic fact, so the task must fall upon our teachers. Do not be confused: Teaching somebody about religion and telling somebody what to believe are two very different things. And one can be done without the other. It worked for me, and my current belief system was never taught to me in school.

oh jesus dear pleeze all that religious stuff is pure nonsense its mostly a scam run by homophobic moneygrabbing priest/mulahs/ministers/rabbis its all hokus pokus lets forget about all that bs and get back to reality! religion is the problem and NOT the answer! lets not polute our schools.
god/jesus she just doesnt exist!

Watch this video from a US soldier about atrocities he and other US soldiers commit on a daily basis in Iraq against innocent people:
http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4315

Historians 95% certain Jesus existed?

Historians and archeologists can look at all of Akhenaten's depictions in ancient Egyptian art and still deny he's really a woman. They speculated "he" got some disease or syndrome causing those feminine looking features. We need to find Akhenaten's tomb and bones too to know for certain.

Of course Jesus existed. As did Alexander, Buddha, Plato and Socrates. Why would anyone want to write up reams on someone who did not exist? And modern myths can be written too by scribes, as per Kennedy's "Camelot" and the 1000 Days.

Tom wrote:
"I agree with E. Favorite and Mr Mark regarding the historicity, or lack thereof, of the Jesus character."

It's a shame that the very compelling evidence for Jesus not existing but being a character based on historic archetypes and even Jewish Mythology is unknown by most people...and rejected out of hand by many religious leaders. They constantly point to the same long-disproven extra-Biblical sources (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc) as independent confirmation of Jesus existence. One wonders if they've even read the research on these sources, for not a single one of them adds even a sliver of new information to the Jesus mythos. The fact that these non-Xian sources all regurgitate the story of the Gospels should be a telltale sign that they are getting their info second- and third-hand, not unlike the Gospel writers of Matthew, Luke & John who used Mark as their source.

The "Jesus as Myth" story is extremely compelling as it fits the Jesus story squarely in the tradition of other redeemer sun gods of the Greek, Egyptian and Roman worlds. I can appreciate and understand a Jesus that fits such an archetype, for it doesn't involve belief in the supernatural any more than most people would cite Zeus as the source for their belief in things supernatural.

What's it say about people that in the 21st century they stlll believe in gods, demons, Satan, witches, ghosts, exorcisms and the other idiocies that grew out of the Dark Ages? And we haven't even mentioned the belief in people rising from the dead!

I agree with E. Favorite and Mr Mark regarding the historicity, or lack thereof, of the Jesus character.

Rev Webster -- I’ve heard the conjecture about Shakespeare’s existence too. I wouldn’t call it a “conspiracy” about Shakespeare or Jesus, and I don’t know of anyone who has, except for you. (Perhaps you could show me other sources.) In the case of Shakespeare, the name I’ve heard mentioned as the real author is Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. It’s interesting, but not much like Jesus; There are records of both Shakespeare and De Vere and there’s no dispute about the literature itself existing. It’s fictional, of course, unlike the Bible which is considered the word of God. Also, neither Shakespeare nor his fans (he doesn’t have followers) make any claims of divinity about him. We can all enjoy his literature – no need to worship him or to fight wars over him.

While Jesus could have existed, I don’t see how your reasoning makes a case for it. The Jesus story is neither complicated (being similar to other stories of earlier times) nor seamlessly woven. The new testament course I took as part of an adult Christian education program made it quite clear that the Gospels’ authors were anonymous – which I’d read elsewhere, possibly in one of Bishop Spong’s previous books. So there’s dissent about that, and no convincing evidence in favor of specific authorship.

I don’t see how you determined 95% certainty for the existence of Jesus. It seems like another example of the type of assertion scholars and clergy often make when it relates to the existence of Jesus.

Rev. Paul L. Webster wrote:
"As for disputing the historical existence of a physical being who lived somewhere around 5 B.C.E and extending to around 30 of the Christian era, one could endlessly dispute the thin physical evidence...

"Interstingly, someone much closer to our time, who also independently changed much of Western thinking has suffered the same conspiracy of "non-existance". William Shakespeare has been at the center of a heated debate for decades. Did he really exist? If so, how could he have been so well educated to write the things he wrote? What schools did he attend? Did he arise from no where? Sir Francis Bacon is often thought to have written under a psudonym. Marley and many others have also be suggested for the genius."

Of course, it's entirely posible that both Jesus & Shakespeare were fabrications.

However, we have much more evidence for th existence of William Shakespeare than Jesus. These include birth and death dates, portraits, a tomb and a very specific life story with specific dates attached to specific places. Plus, a named spouse. None of that exists for Jesus. Moreover, there is no aspect of Jesus' lifestory that didn't appear earlier and elsewhere, in pagan myths and even in OT writings. There was no archetype sitting around in the common mythos for the figure of Shakespeare before he happened upon the scene, while Jesus bears striking resemblance to Mithras, Apollo and other gods.

The question with Shakespeare isn't whether he existed or not. The question is if he actually wrote all of those plays, etc. Now, one could consider Jesus in this light as well: ie: a person who really existed, but whose lifestory is an amalgam of myths and beliefs grafted onto a person who actually lived none of that lifestory. But I don't think that's the parallel the Rev was trying to draw.

The Good Bishop writes:

"How, for example, can one teach medieval history without being involved with the presence and power of the Christian Church that literally dominated the Western World at that time? How can one teach the history of the Middle East and avoid looking deeply at the presence and influence of Islam in Middle Eastern life? How can one study the political and social movements that have affected the Asian sub-continent without looking at the tensions created between Hindus and Muslims? How can one evaluate the administration of George W. Bush without examining the religious base that he courted so vigorously?"

Indeed.

How can we discuss the history of the United States without "looking deeply" at the religious beliefs of the indigenous people who were slaughtered by the white man? What do most Americans know of the religious beliefs of the American Indian tribes, outside of "they worshipped the Great Spirit" simplicities (I am guilty of this myself). How can one understand the evil of the concept of Manifest Destiny without knowing the cultures that were crushed by this Christian-legitimized belief?

If we're going to learn about religions in schools, let's start at home with ALL of the religions that exist and have existed in our nation.

As for disputing the historical existence of a physical being who lived somewhere around 5 B.C.E and extending to around 30 of the Christian era, one could endlessly dispute the thin physical evidence. No birth certificates, no death certificates, no school records, no diplomas from distinguished university, no military records, no appointments to high office, no property ownership. Finally, the central core of Christian Theology--no body.

Interstingly, someone much closer to our time, who also independently changed much of Western thinking has suffered the same conspiracy of "non-existance". William Shakespeare has been at the center of a heated debate for decades. Did he really exist? If so, how could he have been so well educated to write the things he wrote? What schools did he attend? Did he arise from no where? Sir Francis Bacon is often thought to have written under a psudonym. Marley and many others have also be suggested for the genius.

Jesus Christ exists for those who believe and for those who have weighed the records. It hardly seems likely that such a large and complicated tale could have been woven so seamlessly. Each Gospel relied on many sources for their information. It seems that while each is very different, having been written in different times and places for different audiences, the important facts are essentially the same. St. Paul, Peter, James, seem to have been real people who wrote either from first hand knowlege or with access to the testimony of actual witnesses. 95% certainty is enough for most Historians and is not irrational thinking for the rest of us. One would have to believe in the greatest conspiracy theory of all times to believe otherwise.

Hi, Tom - I had already checked out the non-biblical sources and know what you mean. What I've found fascinating since then, is seeing how modern scholars assert the existence of Jesus, disregarding those sources and treating consensus among scholars as if it were prima-facie evidence.

It reminds me of the hormone replacement therapy debacle situation a few years ago, when doctors were prescribing hormones to all post-menopausal women on the basis of inconclusive and questionable observational studies and widely publicized (thanks to drug companies) assertions that to do otherwise would be irresponsible medicine. Millions of women believed that they would be subjecting themselves to higher risks of cancer and dementia if they did not take hormones.

In fact, the opposite was true, which eventually was proven by rigorous double-blind scientific research.

I don’t think that research on the existence of Jesus can be tested in this way, but I do think scholars can and should take complete responsibility for their assertions.

I agree fully with Bishop Spong. If the "Bible Thumpers" were actual Bible readers, they would understand that Jesus never forced anyone to follow Him. He even told his Apostles to move on if not welcomed in a community. People can only be moved through the actions of the Holy Spirit, not by the laws of man.

Too many of the people pushing for a "Christian Nation" really are in it for their own agrandizement and the punishment of their theological opponents. We don't need more Pat Robertsons "speaking" for God.

E Favorite, as your search for an historical Jesus grows, you'll find that even the best of the non-biblical references to the Jesus character are nothing more than hearsay. At worst, they are utter fabrications and/or victims of later interpolation.

No cultist wants their own favorite cult's claims to be subjected to rigorous and honest academic study because none of the various cults' grandiose claims are able to stand up to that kind of investigation.

This board is full of stupid hippies.

Jack Spong has some very good things to say most of the time. I don't agree with him on the idea that there is some kind of transcendent "mystery" that is God, or somekind of power in the universe, etc., but I do agree with him on this point regarding the teaching of religion. Now, if religion is taught on the college/university level as a discipline, like literary criticism, then that is fine. Critical thinking and intellectual honesty must be applied to religion to make sense of it, cultural product or not.

I am to the point of thinking that all religion has been detrimental to the human species over the millenia, and in no worse time than the present. More and more scholars who approach Christianity with a critical mind and not from an apologist persuasion, are coming to see that much of the written literature, i.e., the so-called Old Testament and the Christian writings, the New Testament, are mostly fiction. Now, if people actually came to believe that argument, it would have an incredible impact on the rigid gay bashing and bullying that goes on in this world, not to mention in the Christian churches.

Unfortunately, I know what I am talking about, having been raised in the southern Presbyterian church, been an Episcopal priest, a Unitarian, and a Roman Catholic and back to Episcopalian again. Now I guess I'm simply critical of religion.

Yes, Bill, but the Northeastern Episcopalians (NOT the Southern bourbon and coke drinkers who are moving to Nigeria) know how to make the best martinis.

Don't underestimate the value of that in this stressful universe.

The secret is to add the same amount of water as you do vermouth. Try it - You'll like it!

That's right, Bill.

Catholics, evangelicals, and Episcopals could all stand to learn a few things about the origin of their own religion, not to mention other people's religions.

Being a member of a religious community is the most immediate way of understanding a religion, aside from learning about it formally. But if we cannot expect people to understand their own religion through being a member of the community of believers, then how can we expect our children to understand other people's religions through an indirect study of these religions? This argument is clearly vacuous to me.

Mavaddat, how true you are! As a Catholic I can tell you most Catholics are incredibly ignorant of their own practices and beliefs. We also have a lot of interaction with the Episcopalean church and they are as ignorant of the Bible as anyone I've known. They are nice people, but its whatever floats your boat with them and their preacher.
I work with several fundalmentalists and they can quote some scripture, but much of what I quote back they've never heard. They do care about your salvation, but are not as learned on the Bible outside of legalistic practices.
The majority of secularists I know say they believe in Jesus and all that stuff, but don't know what that stuff is! They mostly care about themselves and don't help out with charities except giving money to 9-11 and Katrina causes. Most people don't care about things that don't immediatly affect them.
Christianity is about giving ourselves completly for others and God.

HOT OFF THE WIRE:

"Georgia public schools move towards teaching Bible

"By DOUG GROSS
Associated Press
Thursday, March 8, 2007; 9:16 PM"

ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE WAPO TODAY

Notice that no other religion's scriptures are being taught.

Want to bet on whether the classes will have an Episcopal or a Fundamentalist cast to them?

This Georgia law shows exactly why religion should not be taught in the public schools!

Well said Mr. Spong.

Sorry, this argument is ridiculous. Just because religion is a part of many aspects of human life, that doesn't mean one gets a thorough understanding of religion by studying it obliquely "in the context" of those human activities.

This is like saying that one can understand philosophy by understanding how it has shaped the lives of famous authors. Or that we can understand biology by studying its context in zoology. There is merit to a focused study of religion.

And Americans are largely ignorant about their own religions. So obviously, one does NOT gain a sufficient or adequate understanding of religion through other historical studies. Experience and current events have taught us otherwise.

Bishop Spong,

You've got it just right. Thanks!

Bishop Spong – I realize how politically charged making religion a required course could be, but am increasingly thinking that it’s a challenge, no matter how messy, that we need to take on, sooner rather than later. The issue is not to “isolate religion from the whole of life” as you put it, but to present it as any other academic subject, as is currently done in entry-level college survey courses.

This might have a welcomed (in my view) dampening effect on scholars making assertions which don’t hold up under the usual academic scrutiny.

What I see now is religious scholars, including yourself, making assertions without providing an acceptable amount of evidence. Specifically, I’m thinking of Jesus scholars who assert that Jesus is a real historical figure, in the absence of historical records and archeological evidence. In my own search, which I started with an open mind, assuming there was indeed a real Jesus, I conclude that there COULD have been a Jesus. Unfortunately, the trail is so old and cold that at this point it’s a matter of speculation based on interpretations of biblical texts and analysis of first century recorded history and literature. Maybe there was a Jesus, maybe not – can’t prove it either way, at this point. But, instead, most “respected” scholars will say unequivocally that he existed. This seems meaningless unless the scholars can provide good evidence.

Here’s a summary of what I’ve found:

- You, in your recent book, “Jesus for the Non-Religious” assert that Jesus of Nazareth “really lived” on the basis of a “consensus of New Testament scholars,” and analysis of only biblical material, including that Nazareth (described as a “small, dirty, insignificant town”) was always mentioned as Jesus’ home. You don’t mention that fact that Nazareth (unlike other small towns in the area) isn't mentioned in any extra-biblical records until much later and that archeologists have not turned up evidence of a first century city there. Also, you don’t mention that "Nazarene" and "Nazarite" have meanings unrelated to the town, but related to religious groups of the day.

- Marcus Borg, an ‘On Faith” essayist, accepts that Jesus is the Son of God because early Christians believed it to be so. That’s not evidence, it’s a personal interpretation.

- Another ”On Faith" essayist (NY Wright) states that “There is overwhelming evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really existed" and that he’s “written about it at length elsewhere,” without saying where. Plus, lengthy writings are not necessarily evidence.

- Bart Erhman (Author of “Misquoting Jesus), answering a question in a public seminar, says he thinks Jesus existed because he thought that Paul would not lie about having known the Apostle Peter and James, brother of Jesus. That’s not evidence, it’s conjecture. Besides, Paul was a pretty good salesman, and salesmen are known to exaggerate.

- Raymond Martin, in The Elusive Messiah, quoting Dominic Crossan (also an “On Faith” essayist) says the fact that Jesus was crucified is “as sure as anything historical can ever be.” But there is no reference for the comment, for Crossan’s source of information, nor is any reason given for such certainty. Scholars quoting each other’s assertions is not evidence, no matter how impressive the scholars.

Bishop Spong, I would be delighted if you or any scholar could provide the usual rigorous academic evidence required to affirm Jesus’ existence. Personally, I think Jesus’ message and teachings and the impact of Christianity are what’s important and are what should be emphasized in any basic religion course.