Jesus Broke Barriers; Pope Builds Them

undatable dirgeman freesilverism decursively silicomethane hysterogen undeposited verity
http://www.electricaldiy.com/ >electricalDIY.com
http://www.granville.k12.oh.us/

nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk

kvartiry gorod klin moskva kuplyu kvartiru obyavleniya 2 aya kvartira arenda kvartir g omsk 2 aya kvartira kuplyu kvartiru mo snimu kvartiru gorod chehov algoritm pokupki kvartiry remont kvartir svarka

"The issue is not so much whether Jesus was a social revolutionary or not, the real issue is why Benedict XVI is not"

There are two ambiguities in this statement. First of course the issue, or at least part of it, is whether Jesus was a revolutionary or not, if he wasn't, then why should the popes be? If he was, well then what sort of revolution was he leading and how should the Popes follow?

The second ambiguity is about B16 not being a social revolutionary. I would wager that positions such as being pro-marriage, pro-life and so forth are seen as revolutionary by Spong and his ilk. True it is not the anything goes revolution that they desire, but by the fact that it goes against the grain of much a modern thought, they are revolutionary thoughts.

The truth is, that the revolution Spong espouses has more to do with loving our appetites as if they were gods than it does with Jesus' dictum to Love the Lord your God and your neighbor as your self.

John Shelby Spong is a modern day Paul Blanshard. Blanshard lost his faith, despite being the son and grandson of Protestant ministers. Paul Blanshard's hysterical attacks against Catholicism led him to atheism and socialism. Mr. Spong, you are well on your way to losing your soul.

The Good Bishop actually makes some good points-Jesus certainly rejected to some degree the religious authority of His day-the worry is that it implies that one can not besuccessful in a secular world without being a false Christian-maybe so maybe not-it depends how one lives one's life-and what one does with what ever material blessings come their way

Pot shots at the Pope are easy as is taking aim at the troubles in the episcopal Church-anybody that makes rules often comes under crticism
(re: COngess)

Stay on your own Path -
Mc

Well done John Spong, you are one of my best! You'll be provided for later. Keep up my work!

bwyjtmdf oxhyngas iosahbdpx lndmz bdzxaft erydv lbczps

Speed123

You probably won't get this but your posting, and views--although you certainly never mentioned your Catholicism but then neither much did I--reminds me a *lot* of a certain chicago68 (69?58?) that used to post on the Krugman NYT website. If so, we certainly traded ripostes there a few times.

I wish you had spoken out against the Iraq debacle then, though. For one thing the idea of preventative, acceptable war *really* went against Catholic teaching and John Paul was adamant about this. The Neocons were the intellectual descendants (many were the actual descendants) of Trotskyites. Claes Ryn dated their ideology back to Jacobins and the perverse idea of applying force to the historical process. Additionally, what the Muslim world saw (and they were right!) was the awful phenomena of dedicated Zionists making war on a ME Muslim country. It was a recipe for disaster right from the beginning.

Anyway, hope you can read this & hope to see you again.

Jozevz is an alien and his religion is called ECLATi-On.

Aw, come on Speed; what's wrong with Foxman?

I was trying, desperately, to find something good to say about the late Jerry Falwell on his passing. I chose this:

"At the age of 22, having just graduated from college in June of 1956, Jerry Falwell returned to his hometown of Lynchburg, Virginia and started Thomas Road Baptist Church with 35 members. The offering that first Sunday totaled $135."

I can only imagine the hopes and dreams he might have had for the future back then. I'm sure he never imagined it to be the way it turned out to be.

Someone...Im not! He makes original and intense movies though.

Questioning politics of policy makers and foreign influence of certain countries does not make anyone an anti semite.

Neither does pointing out the fact the the head guys in this were/are Zionists.

Dont pull an Foxman on us, either...

First off it it not difficult for me to say that Jesus is who He said that He is and that is Almighty God in the flesh, the Second Person of the Triune Triumphant God. I have met the Trinity and I have also met satan. Jesus was no social revolutionary He was and is the Saviour of the entire human race. The learned of Jesus's day also had a hard time seeing and/or believing who He is. The word gospel means Good News and when the angels announced Jesus's birth they said that this is Good News for all people. They also said Peace to whom God's favor rests. These are two different statements and they are both true. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Speed:

Don't pull a Mel on us.....

Russell:

Ethics were shoved aside by fear and ignorance - its hard to prove malice though that might be part of the equation as well. That's why it very important to be open minded - because there are intelligent religious people who have answers and intelligent atheists and agnostics. Someone's faith or ideology does not necessary preclude them from having some of the answers you need to put the puzzle together - but venting gets you no where - interesting the analogy you use for religion is very close to how Martin Luther described sin. Grace covers sin up - instead of removing it -

"Actually, all present-day Xians are atheists except when it comes to their god."

Does kind of sound like it, doesn't it. Actually, it's not entirely true, depending on how you use the word Xians: some seem quite able to reconcile their theological figures existing among many others who-aren't-by-definition-devils.

The baseline seems to be a certain doublethink about really two separate ideas of Christian divine figures: you've got a tribal lawgiver guy, and you've got a conception of The Everything God, and a lot of what my perspective sees as a conflation of the two.

The belief that "My God Who Wants To Be Believed In And Obeyed By All Exclusively, Hates Masturbation And Single Payer Health Insurance *Is* The Ultimate Ineffable Will Of The Entire Universe..."

...Well, *that* is setting people up for a campaign of conquest, successful, 'righteous,' or not.

But plenty of people can do Christ-following with, I've found, great sincerity and devotion: *more,* even, when unencumbered by this idea of conquering minds to a certain belief, and of defensively-disbelieving in anyone else except maybe as a demon put in the universe to deceive the would-be-faithful.

Actually, this point of view is a lot less scary and painful than people invested in certain human authorities set folks up to think it is.

Personally, I'm what in Pagan circles might be called a 'soft polytheist:' I believe in Gods as individual and distinct entities, much as we are, but also part of a bigger whole, much as we are.

I tend to see the aggressive-Christian tribal-lawgiver God as someone teaching the world something about ourselves. (Maybe even about desires for absolute control and authority, mmmm? By the same token, I respect Zeus, but I sure wouldn't want to model a society on just him. He's not alone on Olympus for darn good reasons.)

But, when like some ancient philosophers, and Sufi mystics and Jewish scholars and some Gnostic Christians say 'God,' I know what they're talking about. Basically, I say "God" like a number of Hindu people seem to, and very rarely because in our culture that is taken to refer *to* jealous-tribal-lawgiver-god-set-up-as-ruling...

What-in-my-world-he-don't...

I refer to the Great Goddess there. Technically, I've found that actually makes me a 'monotheist' in terms of not-getting-bludgeoned-to-death-in Jerusalem under the Noahide laws, but I've noticed people picking up rocks don't tend to be in a mood to actually discuss theology.

I think you can perfectly well see the universe as a place with bigger beings than yourself, (or your mental beliefs or emotional hangups) in it.

When we get to putting our choice of the more approachable ones on too-high-a pedestal, start treating books and laws like some cargo cult that Must be Obeyed, And Nothing Else Must Exist, And My Belief Is All My Universe To Me ...I think we're resorting to *superstition,* though, and moreover, creating *mental* idols which can be a lot harder to see past because they become our eyes like no statue ever could.

Worship a finite thing, even an idea, as Absolute Power, and, well, you get absolute power corrupting absolutely.

It doesn't have to be that way. Particularly not just because someone focused on power *said* so.

It's our *humanity* that can save us from what this brings, and that's where I think this Jesus character really had something to say. And he was by no means the first or last.

I think a lot of people today, and for a long time, have been set up with this idea that 'If I don't believe as fervently as possible, or if someone else doesn't believe in just the same way as I do, I have nothing. I'm alone against death. That's been made too frightening to contemplate, so I must 'save' everyone from this 'threat' that I have to believe in so I can believe in the 'cure.'

I think so much of monotheist religion out there has become such an *inversion* of how we're actually *made* to *get along with each other* that it robs us of the simple tools we're all born with as social primates. Why are we even talking? Cause that's what we do. It can work.

If we let it.

The first step, really, is realizing that it's not *what* people believe that matters, but maybe *how.*

The forms, the words, the books, the cultures, you could say they're *between* us and the Gods. Not the Gods themselves. Much less 'God.'

Just we're humans. Might be better to concentrate on *that* rather than trying to come at it indirectly by trying to conquer minds in the hope that'll make everything rosy forever.

This time. It'll be different. Really.

Yah. Right.

Getting along with each other, though?
Using our brilliance for better than this?
Even just starting on what we *can* all agree on as measurably and directly a good thing, well...

Any time.

I'm still just not convinced somehow that the proper forms of public piety and making sure everyone's having only the right kind of sex would magically fix things if you could actually do it in the first place.

In case no one noticed, what we *do* have, is a world. Even a reasonable understanding of the benefits of human liberty. We could have a global 'holy war' right now, while the water rises, or we could start with what we have together, instead of thinking the point of it all is the contents of our heads. :)

Jerry Falwell's brain was full of all manner of stridency and certainty and authority... that was more important at the time than the tears he helped bring to the innocent. It's dead now, with all its fears and ideas and beliefs: but what he's done is part of us.

What's 'he' experiencing now? Well, hey. Whatever it is, he doesn't have a brain to do it with. We still have to deal with what he put in our collective one, though. Not sure he was really thinking about that in life.

Might be a good time to examine the effects.

I just have one comment:

Religion is a bunch of Bull****. It stinks, usually, dirty, and when you stick your foot in it, it takes forever to get it off. Including the smell.

Norrie,

Hate to disagree and sound like a broken record, but the worst attrocities commited against humans has been that of communist, atheist progress in Russia and China. Nothing like it had ever been seen by any or all religions put together.

As for the Neo Cons, I would not take religion out of it. They are Zionists, and defenders of Israel at all costs. Very complicated when you speak about religion/enthnicity in for Israelis.

"Hell, more people are upset these days with the way Christopher died on Sunday's episode of The Sopranos than they are about Opus Dei...or Bigfoot, for that matter."

Chistopher died??! ;-)

This is really my point, though. Distraction to the real evils and problems of the world!

The media sets the agenda...and when it comes to the Church they are decidedly negative i.e. they are always ready to cast doubt and a sour spin.

Why none of the doubting-thomas reporters can also question the Israeli influence in US politics is really beyond me!

Or perhaps a little fact checking before a war?!

Pat: I hadn't heard what the pope said but he's a politician and I'd rather watch his actions than his words...

Many thanks to the Post for providing a venue for folks to vent their anti-Cstholic bigotry and hatred. So refreshing that intolerance can still be celebrated in these PC times.

Did, uh, anyone actually read what the Pope said in Brazil? He firmly allied the Church with the poor and it's mission to the poor; he decried the growing descrepancy in wealth betweent he rich and the poor; he said he had no doubt that Oscar Romero merited beatification.

He also met with the poor and with drug addicted youths who are served by Catholic religous who have dedicated their lives to helping the poor.

FALWELL HAS DIED.

Sorry for he confusion with my former ANONYMOUS posts, I've posted in other threads before, I just posted my first note casually this morning and didn't think I'd actually engage in any sort of discussion. Came back to see that someone was laughing me off as if this was some kooky conspiracy theory? No sir-- I've dealt first-hand with the creepy Opus in Latin America, and they are indeed the forces of authoritarism and backwards social policies. Truly a scary cult.

About what Juan mentioned of class warfare, etc. Unfortunately, Latin American elites have built themselves up on the back of the poor without giving anything back. Many countries had feudal social structures until recently, racism prevails, and hunger is no "excuse", hunger is a bleak reality that poor people must face every day along with disease, unemployment, rampant corruption, and exploitation of all kinds.

Had I been born in those conditions I would have probably become a guerrilla member, but being brough up in the comforts of the middle class spared me the need.

In Peru, where I was born, the Jesuits did a lot for the poor; those aligned with the Opus Dei, on the other hand, preach submission to authority and dismiss the needs of the poor. They have been doing that since they prospered with the fascist tyrant Franco in Spain. They want to keep the poor opressed and abused so they can profit.

I am not a Marxist, I think it is a misguided ideology, but when you have such extreme poverty and inhuman conditions, human rights abuses, and outright theft (everyone in the government embezzles), some sort of action is needed, because one cannot hope that the elites will look out for the downtrodden. Frankly, given the choices, Liberation Theology looks a lot better than Neofascism.

About what people told (me??) about the Neocons, etc-- This is not the subject of the discussion here; Bishop Spong mentioned the support of the latest popes for the rich in Latin American, and with your permission, I'm sticking to the topic.

Besides, in Latin America, the church has a more important presence than in the USA. They have historically opposed land reforms, civil marriages, divorce, legal abortions, tolerance of other religions, etc. The Catholic Church in Latin America has always been a backwards force. With Paul VI this let down a little, but now the right wingers are back and things do not look good.

Speedy wrote:

"American get worked up by the media over the evil Catholic pope or Opus Dei, while they get worked over by corporate power, Neo Cons and think tanks such as PNAC."

You must travel in different circles than I. I honestly don't know anyone who is worked up over Catholics. I do know any number of people who are closeted bigots when it comes to Jews.

If the American people are worked up about Opus Dei, it's only in the sense that they get worked up over Bigfoot or the JFK assassination. It's water cooler chat, not a political movement. Hell, more people are upset these days with the way Christopher died on Sunday's episode of The Sopranos than they are about Opus Dei...or Bigfoot, for that matter.

As far as the "evil" Pope - I don't think the media is working to make him look evil. He says enough bonehead things often enough to keep open-minded people shaking their heads in disbelief. This Pope only seems evil because the media went out of its way to deify and whitewash the last Pope, so the new Pope suffers in comparison.

Speed123,

It took some work, and I had to try to put myself in your place (which wasn't easy), but, yes, I think I do see your point.

I don't like neocons either, but I think comparing them to the Pope or the Vatican is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

The neocons have a purely political and earthly agenda, while the Vatican tries to tell people about the nature of the universe and human beings, and to prescribe how everything in life should be dealt with.

That goes a lot deeper - it's why religious wars are the worst ones.

Paganplace writes:

"Actually, early Christians were considered 'Atheists' by some for disbelieving in pretty much everyone's Gods. (and possibly for worshiping a man.)"

Actually, all present-day Xians are atheists except when it comes to their god.

Mark,

I agree that this is not a movement that the majority of Jewish Americans like (in fact, most hate it).

However, that does not take away the very real Zionist underpinnings of these guys. Strauss was the founder and Wolfowitz was his main "disciple." All of the major policy guys are Jewish Zionists - who even now feel that this was a good idea: wolfie, PERLE, FEITH, etc.etc.etc.

Goggle and read "A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm" by Feith and Perle.

American get worked up by the media over the evil Catholic pope or Opus Dei, while they get worked over by corporate power, Neo Cons and think tanks such as PNAC.

So stupid and so very expected if you look at history.

Oh, and, Anonymi... Pretty easy solution to any confusion... Pick a name. Mine's actually pretty arbitrary, (a Waterboys album that happened to be around when I first posted here. Saves me constantly saying where I'm coming from, anyway. :)

Anyway, TDay

TDAY:

"Religous confusion at its best here, folks.

How realistically obvious it has all turned out when we realize the decisions the first humans made...to decide good and evil for themselves."

Wasn't that supposed to be the first *bad* decision humans made, even in your book supposed to result in misery on Earth, separation from the Divine, and all kinds of other bad stuff?

I'm honestly continually-dumbfounded by the Christian insistence on convincing people who have no particular conception of this 'sin and evil' concept in order to 'save them' from something they didn't have in the first place. :)

Sounds like ignorance would be bliss, there. Why share the misery. :)

As for ignorance that's *harmful,* well. The miracles of the manifest universe: Willful ignorance of how it works doesn't make it any more wonderful, and knowledge of how it arises doesn't have to make it any *less* wonderful.

Hard to really love someone or something you're afraid to look at.

Hello Norrie,

Some threads get me more riled up that others ;-)

Do you not see my point, though? Proabably not...

These idiots focus on the "straw man" of the evil Catholic Church and the wicked pope that the media and hollywood puts up.

At the same time, we get raped by Neo Cons (a zionist group) and their media enablers such as the Post and tricked into a war that has cost us billions and killed hundreds of thousands - if not one million Iraqis by now.

Focus people! Think for yourself...

Wow, coming out and saying you are anti-catholic?
Are you also an antisemite?

I mean it is obvious enough in some cases, but I think that you should consider your position. There are many fine catholics out there, and there are many with problems, what denomination can say it is without fault. Atheists? Seriously, this forum is full of name calling and un-referenced accusations. It highlights a powerful form of bigotry that I think we should all work towards eliminating.

First of all the idea we should tolerate other religions (while barely even represented here) is a flawed notion. To tolerate implies that it exists at your mercy or with your permission. We should recognize, accept and appreciate the other faiths. We should look at the good they do, and understand that human failure requires patience and forgiveness. No one man is perfect, much less a church. We should look to our own faith, and see what we must improve there. And we should be careful about making inflammatory comments where they are made without a higher purpose. An argument for arguments sake serves no one.

I am troubled by the Bishop's posting because he makes a sweeping generalization. And he doesn't provide detailed information or references to back up the statement. At the end of the day instead of a careful criticism offered in good faith it appears to be a fanning of flames that creates more smoke than enlightenment. What do we learn, I think that we should judge information by it's source, and this source has not proven its worth.

"Do you believe in Zeus? If not, isn't that a creed? Should we now describe you as an "a-Zeusist"?

I don't think that even Speed123 could help you with the silly argument you penned above."

Actually, early Christians were considered 'Atheists' by some for disbelieving in pretty much everyone's Gods. (and possibly for worshiping a man.)

Dear Speedy -

The neo-con movement is right-wing politics by design. Any Jewish members of that particularly odorous cabal are neo-cons first, Jews by birth.

As you well know, the PNAC Manifesto of 6/3/97 was signed by Jews and Xians alike. Among the prominent non-Jews who signed it were Rumsfeld, Gary Bauer, George Weigel (an OnFaith contributor!), Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, Francis Fukuyama, Vin Weber and William Bennett. Sure, the usual idiotic Jewish talking heads like Bill Kristol are well represented as well, but it isn't a purely Jewish movement by any means.

Speed123,

You had a nice rejoinder to my attempt at humor.

BTW, After reading some of your posts a few days ago, I said to myself, "He's mellowing - he actually made a couple of good points."

What's happening - are you O.K.?

Regards.

Religous confusion at its best here, folks.

How realistically obvious it has all turned out when we realize the decisions the first humans made...to decide good and evil for themselves.

The inventor creates his masterpiece..a complex object that could in no way or fashion have formed of itself, over time, in all of its parts, capacities and gifted intellect on its own. Our ancestor is not amoeba..that organism that basically still exists in its same state it always has. If only the masterpiece could fully perceive the inherent intellect it was given and, as a loving son or daughter looks to the guidance of their loving parents....as the miracle of a litter of kittens looks to its mother, fashioned and created to serve their needs until they are ready to move on by themselves...and as human life miraculously recreates itself over and over agin thru the millenia...we find that the only evolution is what we have done to oursleves...not what the creator or even nature could do to us.

Here is Opus Deis website:

http://www.opusdei.org/

ANON, I guess your cant pick up sarcasm while busy on the witch hunt.

Opus Dei is a conservative catholic group just like there are conservative protestant goups or hindu groups etc. etc. etc.

What to see a conservative group with REAL power in government - this is for you also Mr Mark - look at the Jewish Neo Conservative movement lead by men who fabricated the IRAQ WAR: Wolfowitz, Feith, Pearl, Abrhams, Libby etc etc etc and started by Strauss at the univeristy of chicago.

The real world is much more scary that your Catholic conspiracy theories!

Want to change the world? Spend your time questioning the actions and influence in govt. of PNAC and AIPAC and the Neo Cons...

You tell such a tempting, easy to swallow story about South American religion that it's hard not to try and believe it. But it's easy to understand precisely because it's one sided.

I will try not to take sides, but you forgot to mention that the Theology of Liberation got dangerously close to guerrilla movements last year. And it has evolved with these movements, which are now nothing more than terrorist groups with the ever-present excuse of hunger.

You are trying to shoehorn the topic of Latin American religion in to a "Class Warfare" stereotype. If it only were that simple. Not all the wealthy are corrupt, not all landowners are exploitive. Isn't the U.S. the "landowner" of the American continent? As such, are you a well-to-do exploiter?

It's very easy to watch revolutions on T.V. and take the side of the underdog. The problem is, what if the underdog is the bad guy?

Nice try, but American people know better (I hope)

Sheen - thanks for the history lesson. I did not mention the Spanish Inquisition in my post above. I and probably many others are aware it was not a religious war -- more like ethnic cleansing.

Jack:

Maybe I just can't carry on an intellectual conversation. Must be the by-product of this crappy edumaction sistum.

Ethics and no ethics certainly pertain to the current state of our country and they have been shoved aside numerous times. How can we have a strong country if the government throws out the ethics? Hiding behind a book is not the answer. I am sure you can agree on that.

"Judging from the content of his posts, probably high on his namesake substance."

Norrie, the name calling and slander....not very nice coming from...

oh, I forgot...youre a lawyer.

Carry on.

Sorry, I'm just the anonymous who wrote about the Opus Dei-- I am not responsible for other anonymous posts, some of which might be obvious lunacy, I don't know. Having grown up in Latin America not only do I agree with Bishop Spong, but I have seen how socially progessive priests were sidelined in favor of fascists and how the Opus Dei cultivates the rich and influential. If all you know about that organization comes from movies featuring Tom Hanks, please, go read books.

Dear Russell D -

Thanks for your last post.

As a lifelong Democrat, I find it very disturbing that our current slate of hopefuls feels that they must wear their faith on their sleeves. I find it to be pandering of the worst kind.

Last night, Larry King had a show on god in politics. All of the panelists pointed out that the religious right has become disenchanted with the Republic Party, and that they are now looking at both parties for representation.

What they didn't address is the why of that situation. Both parties have the same platforms they have always had, pro-this, anti-that, so the changes in allegiance aren't being made on a policy level. I doubt that they're being made because a few Dem politicos are touting their faith and putting on airs by faking a Southern accent.

No, I think their switching parties has a much more base reason - they have become used to ready access to power. The power of the Rs is dimming while that of the Ds is rising, and the religious right fears the loss of power more than anything. They will align themselves with Dems who openly support abortion if it means they still have the access to power that they have enjoyed under the Rs. One of the religious panelists even said that the religious right needs to move away from abortion as an issue and embrace poverty as their single-issue view of politics!

BTW - I have decided to follow the lead of Christopher Hitchens: I now prefer to be called an anti-theist, rather than an atheist. It's an important distinction that moves passive disbelief into the sphere of activism. Care to join me?

Russell:

Your question was whether religious or non-religious people are ruining this country. I refocused it to whether ignorance or malice was the primary problem in this country. Now you are refocusing the argument around politics - and are going back to attack religion - shunning the position you implicitly admitted to by not attacking it - that it is ethical versus non-ethical behavior that should be our main determining factor. You have used a backend technique that works well in verbal exchanges but when written down you get caught.
So now I ask whether you understood the distinction between ideology and ethical behavior
if you say yes - then you have admitted you really
aren't searching for the truth - if you say no - then you are admitting you aren't capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation.

ANONYMOUS: Dan Brown...is that you????

I am a BIG fan!!

For the next novel you should high light the link between jewish international bankers and Opus Dei...that would be awesome!

Or, better yet, just focus on the neo cons: Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith - that way you wont even have to use your amazing fiction writing powers...

and my mention of the Opus Dei, for those who are ignorant of this organization, pertains to this statement in bishop Spong's commentary:

"Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor John Paul II have consistently put themselves on the side of the aristocracy, the landowners and the well-to-do in Latin America."

You may not know this, but the Opus Dei has been the instrument by which this policy has been carried out.

E Favorite:

I know EVERYONE says that the Inquisition was a Christian crusade, but it was actually a political campaign which used religion as its enforcer. The leaders of the church tried on numerous occasions to put an end to what was happening, but was unable to do so. People need to study history a little more closely...

In the late 1400's the leaders of Spain needed a way to unify the country into a strong nation. In those times there really was no separation of church and state, especially not if you wanted a stable country. The rulers decided Spain was to be all Catholic, and they took on the help of the Catholic church for the Inquisition, which was to begin converting or kicking out non-Catholics.

In 1483 Ferdinand and Isabella chose Tomas de Torquemada to become the inquisitor-general for most of Spain. He was responsible for establishing the rules of inquisitorial procedure and creating branches of the Inquisition in various cities. It was at this point that the torturing and killings began. He remained the leader of the Spanish Inquisition for fifteen years and reported directly to them. The Catholic Church and various popes attempted to intervene in the Spanish Inquisition on numerous occasions but were unable to change the minds of the monarchy.

"Man, did the thread just lurch downward when Opus Dei was mentioned! Didn't you just know it would come in? Start with liberation theology, end up with Dan Brown, with JJ the nutcase in between."

If you think the Opus Dei is something out of that silly Da Vinci book/movie you are sorely mistaken. Why will their mention bring the thread downward? Their mention is germane to the subject of this discussion.

The Opus Dei is a right-wing organization within the church that was founded by a lunatic and functions like a cult and profits by infiltrating governments and economic elites.

Please read this-- it's not very good prose, but it contains a lot of accurate information:
http://www.geocities.com/catolicos2001/truth.htm

Pope Wojtyla supported the growth of the Opus Dei and ordained their first priest. Pope Ratzinger continues this dangerous policy.

Jack:

That's an interesting question to answer. In my experience, I'd say people tend to let their own personal or spiritual beliefs cloud their better judgement. What it boils down to is overall gain and prosperity. It seems that the GOP has used the Holy trump card one too many times and has more egg on their face than a 1 year old eating breakfast. Religion should not dictate leadership or govern a country. The two main political parties seem to be nothing more than glorified religious sects. Each spouting its own belief system to ingrane the country with laws and policies that make no sense. Maybe it's better if we let a monkey run the country. It would certainly do a better job than Bush has been doing. He has made us the joke of the world and fails to accept responsibility for it. Religion and politics don't mix very well. Keep the religion out of politics and vice versa. The world would be better off without it.

MC wrote:

"Where is Speed123 when you need him?"

Judging from the content of his posts, probably high on his namesake substance.

Is he of one substance with the substance? (& not the Father).

You know what nobody talks about honestly?

That Democracy FAILED twice in Russia.

The first was the miserably failed DEMOCRATIC revolution 6 months PRIOR the Bolshevic Revolution of October, 1917.

The second is the current Putin Adminstration.

How come nobody talks honestly about THIS?

Just wondering.

MC & E Favorite ought to read Barbara Branden's biography of Ayn Rand, "The Passion of Ayn Rand" and Edward Ruthfurd's historical novel, "Russka."

These two would clear up a great many misconceptions about Russia, Communism and 2,000 years of history vented on this blog.

sw

mc writes:
"So tell me, my friend favorite, what God do the atheists not believe in? The God of the Prophets, Jesus, Presbyterian Jesus, Shiva, who?

Isn't that a creed??"

Dear MC -

Do you believe in Zeus? If not, isn't that a creed? Should we now describe you as an "a-Zeusist"?

I don't think that even Speed123 could help you with the silly argument you penned above.

The Newsweek review of the Pope's new book has that sickly sweet Catholic residue about it, like a bowl full of hard candy in a dark, dusty parlor: "'Everything' in Christianity, the Pope writes, depends on building an 'intimate friendship with Jesus.'" Thanks, Bishop, for continually trying to get to the unsentimental truth.

So tell me, my friend favorite, what God do the atheists not believe in? The God of the Prophets, Jesus, Presbyterian Jesus, Shiva, who?

Isn't that a creed??

And you really do need to read up on Bolshevism. They were a direct descendant of the Jacobin and viscerally antiChristian.

But I'm too busy & it's not relevant. Where is Speed123 when you need him?

I'm off.

Jack, you say you want to “…clear things up for all the atheists that don't think atheists kill….” I don’t recall an atheist saying they thought that. As “Someone” might say expanding on his/her thoughts above, “PEOPLE kill.”

No group has cornered the market on murder. Civil law condemns it. War condones it.

Stalin and wasn’t promoting atheism, he was promoting his own power. In contrast, Christians during the crusades (and other religious wars) were actively promoting Christianity – and of course, their own power too, in the guise of what Jesus wanted. Gentle Jesus, meek and mild.

Mary Cunningham - atheists don't have a creed. I don't think buddhists do either. Ask Norrie.

I am certain Anonymous hasn't read one book of Jack Spong's all the way through as his post -- Posted May 14, 2007 6:52 PM -- roundly attests.

Bishop Spong is the most proliphic and successful theologian/author & active/retired cleric in any denonimation -- including former Cardinal Ratzinger.

Anon ought to avail himself of actually reading Bishop Spong's corpus for himself rather than parroting others' obvlously-biased negative opinions about that corpus.

Here's a selected bibliography:

"The Bishop's Voice: Selected Essays, 1979-1999—Diocese of New Newark, New Jersey," Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Church USA, ©2000

"Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Virgin Birth & How a Male-Dominated Church Treats Women," Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Church USA, ©1992

"The Easter Moment," Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Church USA, ©1980

"This Hebrew Lord: A Bishop’s Search for the Authentic Jesus," Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Church USA, 1st Edition, ©1974, 1st Revised Edition, ©1988, 2nd Revised Edition, ©1993

"Here I Stand: My Struggle for a Christianity of Integrity, Love, and Equality—Autobiography," Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Church USA, ©2000

"Honest Prayer," Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Church USA, ©1973

"Jesus for the Non-Religious," John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop, Rtd., ©2007

"Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes—Freeing Jesus form 2,000 Years of Misunderstanding," Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Church USA, ©1997

"Living in Sin: A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality," Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Church USA, ©1983, 1984, 1988

"A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith is Dying & How a New Faith is Being Born," John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop, Rtd., ©2001

"Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture," Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Church USA, ©1991

"Resurrection: Myth or Reality?—A Bishop’s Search for the Origins of Christianity," Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Church USA, ©1995

"The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love," John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop, Rtd., ©2005

W"hy Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In Exile," Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Church USA, ©1999

I have read all of these in their entirety. He should before he says another word.

sw

"Has to have some creed...After all, this is the "On Faith" group."

Well, I observe that you don't have to be an athlete to talk "On Sports." :)

As for JJ, well, seems to have the virtue of being unusual in some ways, anyway. :)

Ok he's an alien...But is JJ an atheist or a Buddhist alien?

Has to have some creed...After all, this is the "On Faith" group.

You know, I do get pretty tired of people saying, 'Stalin's regime was 'atheist' so that makes atheists murderers and worse than Christians and the Church.'

Stalin himself was actually highly-shaped by abusive and repressive Christianity, which certainly connects to a lot of his psychological profile. 'Atheism' certainly holds no tenets encouraging murder, brutality, and oppression, ...like many dictators, he simply wanted people's energy focused on the state, rather than a church's pseudo-state. Tyrrany just as often takes on the trappings of a king-god as it sets up a dictator as a god-*king.*

It's about the power.

Always is.

Someone claimed that 'most of the liberal agenda is sexual,' ...I'd say that that's probably just how it appears because theocratic agendas (and other control-oriented forms) tend to emphasize the *control* of people's sexuality instead of, say, social justice issues. This is because if if you can get people to displace their sexuality onto your authority, you've got them where they live. Especially if you can make them think that it's something which *needs* external controls, you have people's energy focused right on your power, and their minds conditioned to ignore one's own feelings and reason in favor of obedience, even if what's demanded is irrational or even horrible.

"If you can make someone believe an absurdity, you can make them commit an atrocity."

I often point out Abu Ghraib: these folks were raised plenty Christian, and what they learned wasn't that it would be utterly wrong for them to commit sexual indignities upon prisoners, ...but in a way thinking that someone else being 'bad' for following the 'wrong' religion *deserved to be portrayed as sexually-depraved,* even if it meant *they* were committing the depravities.

Look at that famous 'thumbs-up' picture. Look at the woman's face... That's not someone thinking she's being evil, that's someone thinking that she's *pleasing* someone.

Maybe she thought it was 'all of us.'
Or maybe she thought it was some other *thing.*

Conservative agendas aren't about whether or not a given action is really good... they're about externalizing people's sense of control and responsibility and sublimating these to some authority: if you look at what forms of killing and injustice *conservatives* find excuses for, compared to the hairs they split in order to justify injustices, you'll find they're really the ones who are sex-obsessed.

And will justify when a group following the 'right' authority does terrible wrong, while trying to associate all dissent with a simple matter of following the 'wrong' authority.

They'll talk about righteously-killing gays while calling contraception 'intolerable violations of the commandment not to murder.'

The common element here is that it's a punitive, control oriented view. Not that they're actually following the 'good' parts of any ideology in question, whether that's Communism or Biblical law. They just promise that 'perfect obedience will make everything OK.'

Liberalism itself is really about trying to support the good, rather than 'punish the evil.'

Evil's a pretty easy word to throw around, after all. The results are usually pretty similar, whatever the flag or symbol involved.

Instead,

Jacob is not an alien; he's an ECLATi-On.

:)

Mary Cunningham wrote: "Start with liberation theology, end up with Dan Brown, with JJ the nutcase in between."

Jacob Jozevz is not a nutcase. He's an alien.

Dear Russell:

A distinction must be made between ethics and ideology - there are many religious people that are practical atheists and there are many atheists that are highly ethical people.
Now of the people that are unethical - some of those are evil - and I am using Dr. Peck's definition of evil - evil people are a burden.
But whether ignorance or malice is the bigger problem - I make no judgment. However, both of these problems do seem to go hand in hand. In your opinion which one of those two issues seems to be the bigger problem for yourself personally and for the world at large?

Sorry, Norrie. You seem a fairly strong atheist to me and IMO there's nothing wrong with being one...most Buddhists are. Although IMO your credo seems fairly clear:I would say a cosmos-worshipping atheist more than a Buddhist, I guess I shouldn't call them as I hear them.

Anyway, Buddhism, and it is more philosophy than religion, sees no need for a supernatural being. So it's also a-theism or against the idea of a supernatural being.

In a way it's a compliment as I would say that the atheist challenge to Christianity is its strongest challenge: far stronger than Islam (certainly), also Buddhism. In Europe atheism is intertwined with secular materialism and seems to be carrying all before it.

My answer is the same. We have people from "both sides of the fence" arguing over who's better than who, and none of them REALLY have the best interests of the country at heart. They want things done THEIR way, not the BEST way. They don't want to work together to solve anything. They all think it is impossible to work together to solve anything.

This country has become corrupt on so many levels - morally, legally, politically; and there is no single group that is to blame. And it is the responsibility of all groups to work together to clean up the mess they've made. It just takes people who are mature enough to put differences behind them to start the work.

The alien wrote: "Cyber Friend(s); I was Born on Space - Ship Earth,"

The Earth is not a spaceship.
It's a planet.

Russell wrote:

"So are the religious people ruining this country or is it the atheists?"

Someone replied:
"It's PEOPLE who are ruining this world, Russell. Not religious people, not atheists; people. People who don't care about the plight of their fellow man. People who don't care about what is happening to this planet. People who hate because of differences. And people who entertain rather than fight injustice. That is who is ruining this world, and they come from every walk of life."

Maybe Someone could now answer the question Russell asked: is it the atheists or the religionists who are ruining this COUNTRY (be which I assume R means the US and A)?

Thanks Russell. :)

I know your question wasn't for me, but it was just begging for an answer!

Kuvasz,

"Ah, what a grand and simple religion is Christianity!"

I was being ironic.

I don't quite understand your response to my question:

'Kuvasz wrote:

'"Only from the compassion of the Creator was his Son delivered to the world...

'Why did Kuvasz omit the obvious last words for his sentence: "...TO BE TORTURED AND KILLED."'

Could you elaborate or clarify?

Thanks.

Mary C wrote:

"Man, did the thread just lurch downward when Opus Dei was mentioned! Didn't you just know it would come in? Start with liberation theology, end up with Dan Brown, with JJ the nutcase in between."

"JJ the nutcase" (aka Jacob Jozevz) is a sentient being, even as are you and I, as well as caterpillers and sacred cows.

What Christian charity you express toward him. I prefer Buddhist compassion.

Regards.

P.S. When did nice Irish Catholic ladies begin to start sentences with "Man..."?

Mary, have you been walking the streets of Detroit?

Someone:

Good answer. Now let's see what the other people have to say about it.

Russell wrote:

"So are the religious people ruining this country or is it the atheists?"

It's PEOPLE who are ruining this world, Russell. Not religious people, not atheists; people. People who don't care about the plight of their fellow man. People who don't care about what is happening to this planet. People who hate because of differences. And people who entertain rather than fight injustice. That is who is ruining this world, and they come from every walk of life.

Mary Cunningham,

Dear Mary,

It's been many months since we first met in On Faith and I objected to your calling me an atheist.

I told you I was agnostic with Buddhist sympathies, and that I had never denied the possibility of the existence of a being that could reasonably be called "God".

And now, to quote Ronald Reagan, "There you go again!"

Please don't.

Best wishes.

Rev. Spong,

It is important to see what pro-poor credentials you bear so that we can assess whether you are a credible judge of Benedict XVI on this issue. Since you judge the pope and his church very very harshly in your comments, we'd like to know more about what you have personally done to combat poverty across the world. Are you a credible spokesman for the poor, or are you just an armchair critic and a serious hypocrite? Let us know!

Tony.

Above post mine. Man, did the thread just lurch downward when Opus Dei was mentioned! Didn't you just know it would come in? Start with liberation theology, end up with Dan Brown, with JJ the nutcase in between.

Oh well.

Mr Mark: you raise a lot of good points, which unhappily are not germane to this particular discussion. You should identify which book of the Bible, however. One in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) I would suspect, which is as much history as prophecy.. But I have no time and this discussion is just about played out.

Hope to see you in some other discussion.

Best

More good stuff from Candide. The gospel according to Dan Brown!

Popes Wotzyla and Ratzinger supported the Opus Dei, a right-wing organization that caters to the rich and cozied up to Franco in Spain. It founder, a petit-bourgeois priest, bought himself a nobiliary title.

The Opus Dei is evil and dangerous and the Popes who have supported them are no better than the Borgias.

speed123 wrote:
"Actually, Mr Mark, the prophecy can be interpreted in a number of different ways...as can the term "generation."

We're back to square one: who decides what verses get interpreted and why?

That said, I would like to know how you can interpret the word "generation" to not mean...generation. I don't see much leeway in the dictionary definition of the word for any interpretation that would extend the compass of the word some 2,000 years.

The Bible says that unless a prophet is correct 100% of the time, they are a false prophet. That seems like a pretty straight-forward measure to apply. Why is it that in the case of Jesus such measurements get fudged and interpreted to fit the square peg of the false prophet into the round hole of believability?

Jack:

Got a question for you.

So are the religious people ruining this country or is it the atheists? And give me a good reason please, I'd like to know.

I think it is wonderful that Bishop Spong speaks up. Perhaps after he sorts out the Pope he may be able to turn his attention to a way to keep the Anglican Church from tearing itself apart yet again. But, I guess it is always easier to point out the splinter in someone else's eye than the beam in one's own.

Georgia

Just to clear things up for all the atheists that don't think atheists kill - Joseph Stalin was raised as a devout Georgian Orthodox christian. He went to the Russian Orthodox seminaries in Gorgi and Tblisi. He led the church choir. He was an "A" student. When he was 17 he became an atheist and left the seminary without graduating. Prior to age 17 he killed no one nor seriously injured anyone. He was known to be quite aggressive and somewhat vindictive. Shortly, after becoming an atheist he started a rampage of murder and deception never before seen in the history of mankind -
So yes converts to atheists do kill - what religion was Lenin, Trotsky, Mussolini? All atheists.
As the catholic church under Pope Bebedict XV and Pope Pius XI gave away so much money to the poor that they had to borrow funds for both of their funerals. That is historical fact and is the life history of one Joseph Stalin.

It's true someone like Bishop Spong or, say, Norrie Hoyt, or countless other good, northern, liberal atheists would not approve of many (most?) of the actions of Church leaders or would deem them not fully "compassionate" (although their benchmarks are not revealed).

It's also true that the Church has consorted with some nasty figures; Mother Theresa met with the Marcoses, Cardinal Ratzinger invited Robert Mugabe (along with Archbishop Ncube) to the funeral of John Paul II.

They had reasons. Mother wanted funds for her mission; Ratzinger wanted both to protect Ncube and to allow the Archibishop to continue his charities.

The Church is a global church and tries to deal with world as best it can. Sometimes it succeeds, sometimes it fails.

But I see it as a valiant effort. I give thanks for the presence of Christ's church.

Speed 123 says, "Gee, Don. I have yet to be condemed to hell and damnation on On Faith, so thanks for that."

Gee, Speed, it happens to me all the time. It’s always a Christian who says it - sometimes immediately upon finding that I’m a non-believer and sometimes after a long, civil conversation in which the Christian has been unable to convert me to their views.

It doesn’t upset me personally, because I’m not worried about going to a place that doesn’t exist. However, it does make me feel bad about Christians who behave this way.

"Joseph K:
Kuvasz wrote:

"Only from the compassion of the Creator was his Son delivered to the world...

Why did Kuvasz omit the obvious last words for his sentence: "...TO BE TORTURED AND KILLED."

Ah, what a grand and simple religion is Christianity!"

Perhaps because what is relevent is the Christ-like compassion Spong is saying is berift in much of Papal Christianity.

and no, Christianity is not simple; it is an amalgum of myths, hopes, moral directions, and paths to seek and experience, as Paul Tillich said, the transcendence of the ground of being.

Literally, the word is not the Word; you will have to figure that out for yourself.

Bert,

You might be surprised...but the Catholic Church has almost no money. It survives on the donations of the faithful in the rich developed world to both 1) fund their own churches, schools, &tc 2) fund the church's mission to the poor throughout the world.

The Church does possess incomparable assets--how could you put a value on the Pieta, St Peter's, or the Giottos at Assisi?--which it must keep up (the Italian government helps here) and cannot sell.

For the above reason, the Catholic Church in America is the most important Catholic Church in the world; when the paedophile scandal erupted, and donations from the American laity plummeted, the poor at Catholic AIDS hospices in South Africa (the Church runs about half of these hospices) were effected. Additionally the mission of Archbishop Pius Ncube, about the only source of Western aid permitted in Zimbabwe, suffered.

Why ANYONE would pay attention to a former pastor from a demonination that is imploding (due to a loss of so many members) is baffling. Spong is a classic example of someone growing older that does not grow wiser. Spong reminds me of this line, from the prayer to Saint Michael, the Archangel,

cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.

for it there were ever a raving wolf in sheeps clothing it would have to be John Shelby Spong.

The difference is that Big Chief Pointy Hat is basically the CEO of the biggest global religious franchise there is, Catholicism(R), Inc., Intl., LLC, G.O.D. And, Big Chief is in charge of a Lot Of Money, yes, that 'in God we trust' stuff, probably sitting, rhetorically speaking, maybe literally too, on several tons o money. Ah yes, good old Mammon, that stuff that you're not supposed to be able to serve while you're serving God and so forth, and, bluntly spoken, he's far from being the only hypocrite in this. Organized religion today is Big Business, websites, cable channels, publishing, franchises(churches) around the world, and Big Chief would like to open one up in your neighborhood, too, kind of like Wal-mart, but where you just donate your money, and don't get anything back but a smile and like, these little cookies and some watered-down MD-20/20 etc. Kind of a good little racket, looks all fine and wholesome on the outside, brings in mass profits on the inside while still retaining the veneer of public respectability. Enter people like Jim Bakker, and the whole enterprise becomes more crass and blatant, and also more obvious as a kinder, gentler shakedown, but a shakedown nonetheless. And, as we see more and more of the political ambitions of religious groups including the catholics become more prominent, there does come a point when it's time to ask What's Really Going On, Here, and whether we'll basically end up paying what would amount to a church tax etc.
Organized religion's been around for a while, now, if you join I think it's the Baptists, there's even like a retirement program for True Believers. Personally, I don't care what they do, as long as they keep it open-books so their finances can be publicly reviewed on a regular basis, and they stop trying to run the country. Freedom of religion also implies freedom from it,
and as long as they're not at my door demanding money or trying to inculcate me into their worship circles, I'm good with it. But, boundaries should be set, and all organized religious institutions should be prepared and expected to act within them, which kind of implies putting the kaibosh on the whole crusade business, and telling people like Pat Robertson to cool it. A final note: Go Forth and Multiply needs to be updated to: Go forth, and Keep it in your Pants, or at least provide for your own offspring...6.6 billion people walking around today, time to get with the times...that is, if they ever hope to close their credibility gap with the general public...Jesus was supposed to have thrown the moneychangers out of his fathers' house, and all that...

Steve,

All the things you see on this post, and others, is pure religious confusion....just what mankind ordered for himself when he took of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Eden. Today, we still reap the consequences of that action....but not for much longer.

The pope, in all his regalia including the dagon headdress he wears occasionally, and all that encompasses him and the church he 'heads' is nothing but a modern day carryover of the babylonian mystery religion. Its days are numbered.

Problems with fitting liberation theology into the “liberalism” argument.

My affair here, however, is with Spong’s inclusion of liberation theology into this lexicon of ‘rights’. But it is a poor fit. Firstly, most of the ‘rights’ in the “Liberalism” argument are sexual rights. Secondly, the Church has an extremely long tradition of caring for the poor: about 2,000 years, arguably it has been and is the greatest charitable institution on the planet. Thirdly, John Paul, one of the named prelates, was devoted to the poor, lived a fairly abstemious life and died with nothing.

Given these three drawbacks, do we need to go further? Well, yes. We need to finish this erroneous argument off, once and for all.

John Paul’s objection to Liberation Theology:

John Paul’s argument was with the Marxism and its interpretation of history. Marxism--one of the 19th and 20th century’s political faiths—after reducing all human affairs to a dispute between capital and labour, had borrowed from Hegel the idea of ‘progress’ (towards a worker state, of course). It went on to develop the idea of the selective application of force to the historical process.

Liberation theology put forward that concern for the poor overruled all public matters and posited the poor's ‘right’ to overthrow their oppressors by any means *including violent ones.* This violence in the service of a ‘good’ cause is at the heart of Marxism and JP instinctively forbade it in the practices of the LatAm church. Hence a liberal atheist like Spong charges JP & the church with ‘siding’ with the landowners and the aristocracy: a logical error and palpably false.

A common rhetorical trick which makes use of an error in heuristics.

Spong deliberately muddles the issue by using a fairly transparent rhetorical technique.

According to Spong:
1) Liberation theology (LT) was concerned with the plight of the poor.
2) John Paul II disallowed liberation theology
3) Therefore JPII was not concerned with the poor.

Can you see the error here? (I could reframe it thusly:
Stalin loved his mother.
Churchill detested Stalin.
Therefore Churchill did not love his mother.)

There were many more attributes of LT than simply concern for the poor. There are also many more attributes in John Paul’s Catholic theology that its prohibition of LT. In fact one might say that concern for the poor was the one attribute where the theology of John Paul II and LT *overlapped.*

What Spong has done is go from the specific to the general, taken *one * fact and made it typical of the whole, a heuristic error and a rhetorical trick that should immediately alert us to a false conclusion.

The fact that Spong is an atheist doesn’t nullify his argument.

Is Bishop Spong an atheist? I would say yes, that has been proved in this debate. However, since he doesn’t *pose’* as a bishop to make his argument (that the pontiffs of the Catholic Church don't concern themselves with the poor), it doesn’t nullify his argument. His liberal atheism, however, does alert us to the type of argument he is (IMO erroneously) making. He is making the “Liberalism” argument.

The “Liberalism” argument

This goes: “The Catholic church refuses to allow couples to use contraception. It also condemns abortion, divorce, and homosexual acts. It is an undemocratic institution dominated by a hierarchy of celibate males. I believe in sexual freedom, in women’s rights, and in democracy. The church doesn’t seem to want to sort of society I want to see for the future.” For partial rebuttal of this argument go here:
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm/liberals.html: “the death throes of liberalism”.

(You can download the entirety of McLean’s pamphlet by going to lulu.com. I’ve found the pamphlet well written, well researched & extremely useful in debating atheists.)

The only hatefilled speach that is acceptable and encouraged by media in society is that against the catholic church...try to say something similar against Judiasm or Islam and people will lose it...talk about hypocricy and selective PCness.

As for rewriting the gospels, this is a typical lefty and feminist conspiracy theory...lets cite some proof from main line scholars.

As for a simple observation:

If people are lying they usually stick to a script...did the apostels tell the same story in their version of events?

NOPE, there is marked differences in each account - even on major themes. I suppose you will say that they were nuanced liers, eh

Can I ask a question? Why is there an alien posting on this forum?

Mr. or Mrs. Alien, us people of Earth want to solve our own problems.

We don't need any help from Space Invaders.

Att: D O T T Y et al;

You have hit a Home run, got yourself one out & have imagined a playing field of liberation Theology?

Yooorrrrrrrree OUT! go with ECLATi, You will always Winn Sis!

I expressed earlier my impressions of the similarity of this blog to the Yankees and Red Sox blogs. I was wrong. It is much worse in terms of the vitriol and what sounds at times like hatred. Mr. Mark: "Jesus lied"? That certainly gets one's attention. But that is not something that is between you and anyone else on this blog. In light of the fact that the Bible was written years after Jesus' physical death, and in light of the fact that men followed their "control-freakedness" and met in many councils and argued out what should become dogma (and at the same time nullifying the active role of women in early Christianity), and in light of historical proof that indeed there was much murder and atrocity in the name of Christ by men who could not possibly be Christians though they so professed, and in light that there have been numerous translations from the original to the extent that one questions where lies the accuracy, it seems that the only thing that makes sense if one feels called to faith is to follow the teachings and examples that one can glean as best one can from one's readings, study, and prayer. Certainly Liberation Theology carries the message of Christ. This blog had its beginnings with Bishop Spong and has evolved into some pretty hateful stuff.

Kuvasz wrote:

"Only from the compassion of the Creator was his Son delivered to the world...

Why did Kuvasz omit the obvious last words for his sentence: "...TO BE TORTURED AND KILLED."

Ah, what a grand and simple religion is Christianity!

Actually, Mr Mark, the prophecy can be interpreted in a number of different ways...as can the term "generation."

Funny that we are still talking about Jesus Christ and his message after how many thousands of years, isnt it....

Colin writes:
"Jesus is going to return at some point Mr. Spong. I hope you repent before that happens."

Uh, Jesus said that he would return and that the people living within his generation would see the end of the world:

Luke 21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

21:31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
21:32 "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled"

Jesus lied.

Why do you believe that a proven liar who can't even pass his own Biblical test for being a true prophet will return at ANY point in time?

Who in their right mind is going to take advice on sex, marriage, family, etc., from a celibate? Well, someone who is supposedly celibate? Remind me, how many popes gave church offiices to their sons, or enjoyed little boys popping out of cakes - naked?

No one can or will ever really know who Jesus was, what he was really about, or anything of that nature. Organized religion as a whole is essentially a sham because it professes to have answers it can't possibly have.

Mr. Spong, who represents a church that was created to defend the interests of the aristocracy, portrays the last two Popes in a simplistic and misleading way. I suppose that is how he writes his books.... He does not understand, or pretends he does not, the complexities of the catholic church in poor countries. But what would he understand of the issue?

Got news for you Steve, this is the "blogosphere" and if you go to a travel forum or animal lovers forum etc. etc. you will see the same thing...

Actually it reflects the national media, if you think about it. Who shouts the loudest gets the more attention...

Gotta admire the outpouring of Christian love here.

"You're a liar!"

"You're a heretic!"

"Your faith is responsible for millions of deaths!"

"Your godlessness has killed more!"

"Has not!'

"Has too!"

With a few exceptions, this forum reads like it was written by sixth graders. Good grief, is this what passes for intelligent debate these days?

I wonder if Mr. Spong ever read the recent preachings of Pope Benedict in Brazil, I wonder if he ever see him in palaces and yachts. On the other hand I wonder if he ever realized that the real revolution Jesus brought to this world was a revolution of the soul not a social one. I wonder....if his assertions are just calumny, bigotry to serve the most darkest of purposes.

OK, this pope and the church is an easy target but I can't figure out what all this back and forth banter is suppose to accomplish?

Why should anyone be surprised by Rev. Spong's views -- he's an Episcopalian (still?) and publishes (in other words, he's clearly got something to gain from "stirring the pot").

The basic point Spong is making would have been more worthy of a read if specific examples were given. It would also be nice to have a counterview.

It's a shame very few Christians seem to get the real message. Faith is supernatural. Religion is man-made and very imperfect. So much inhumanity and so many atrocities have been justified in the name of God. Perhaps if Christians, Protestant and Catholic, would live their faith in their hearts instead of wearing their faith on their sleeves, there wouldn't be so much criticism.

When I read some of John Shelby Spong writings I think of what Jesus warned all of us of 'False Teachers'. Spong is indeed a false teacher and his kingdom is in this World not the World that Jesus is the King but the World the Media is the King whom Spong worships. We should pray for Spong's lost Soul.

1) Re the above debate, I think Jesus's direction to us was pretty clear.

From Matthew 25:41-46:

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

For I was an hungred and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

I was a stranger , and ye took me not in: Naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison , and did not minister unto thee?

Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye
did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

2) Perhaps Speed123 should focus more on the Word of God and less on making evasive debating points -- lest his soul scream in hell for all eternity.

Spong point is well taken. Read James Carroll's column in the Boston Globe today-5/14/07. Here's one of his comments: He (Pope Benedict) has been shoring up the power and wealth of that tiny oligarchy that cannot stand a growing mass of believers who see God as aligned with the poor, their religion as a mode less of rapture than of justice".

It's good to be the King.

Only from the compassion of the Creator was his Son delivered to the world. Why not act godlike and offer compassion to each other?

We do what our gods do.

Jesus is going to return at some point Mr. Spong. I hope you repent before that happens.

Speed123: I don't understand why you continually assert that the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were initiated by monarchs. The Crusades were money-making ventures initiated by the papacy in each instance. The Inquisition was certainly backed strongly by Isabella la Catolica, a good Catholic if there ever was one, but with the approval and prodding of Sixtus IV. The symbiotic relationship between Catholic monarchies and the papacy during the Middle Ages up to the Renaissance means you cannot say one or the other was the instigator of the atrocities.

Hello,
This is my first time reading what 'bishop' Spong has to say and hopefully it will also be my very final time. He wonderfully ignores the continual evidence down throughout the years of Pope after Pope pleading for the rights of the poor. Add to that the countless number of selfless clergy who continually work far closer to the poor, I'm sure, than Spong does. They also partially get their inspiration from the Pope.
Unfortunately, Spong again shows us the disastrous myopic self-righteousness that unfortunately characterizes some celebrity (I assume he is one) clergy figures in this country.
Hatred of all things catholic is alive and well in the USA - it only needs the slightest excuse to come out from under it's silken cloth.

Having read volumes of Spong's work I'm sure it is difficult to understand his point from such a limited reading. Yet I believe he must be on to something with the vitriol he apparently generates. Christianity is in the throes of a great change. It's worth listing to what the Bishop has to offer.

Do I hear the theme music for the twilite zone during Spongs comments?

Whoops. "Anonymous" at 6:52 is me.

You write:

"Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor John Paul II have consistently put themselves on the side of the aristocracy, the landowners and the well-to-do in Latin America. Local Roman Catholics like Leonardo Boff and Bishop Romero, in contradistinction, put themselves on the side of the poor and dispossessed."

It would have been helpful had you provided some kind of evidence/context with which to assess what it is you are charging the Popes with. As it is "on the side of" can mean that the Popes are "on the side" of a legal process, "on the side" of compassion, or they are "on the side" of corruption and murder.

Instead we get the same old, same old haters in this chat room who love to blame the church -- especially the Catholic Church -- for their own hate and all of the world's troubles. What classless buffoons!

What are you advocating exactly? That the Catholic Church provide a cover for theft? That they endorse murder as a social revolutionary means? As it stands, this is an ad hominem attack without substance. So much puffery.

I think it's pertinent to consider the source when evaluating any essay. John Shelby Spong is one of the last people I'd quiz about Jesus.

Spong has spent most of his life energy denying most of what was written about Jesus, and picks out only those things that support whatever argument he wants to make at the time.

In this case, he wants to make a point concerning the current Pope, so he cites the love the Lord has (and showed in his earthly ministry) for people at the very bottom of the social and power totem pole. That's true, but Spong diminishes the real gift of Jesus by making him out to be nothing more than a social revolutionary.

Mmmm. Jesus, a mere socialist (or was it a Marxist 2000 years before Marx?) who took a handful of poor fishermen, prostitutes and other misfits and totally revolutionized human history. Nahhh, couldn't have been anything special about Him.

Spong falls into the "good man, but not God" trap. Jesus said he was God. Make no mistake, Jesus made absolutely sure that everyone knew that, by everything He did and how He did it. That's why He was killed. So either Jesus is who He said He is, or He was a stark raving lunatic. Take your pick, but don't cite Him as "a good man" or "a great moral teacher" if you choose to toss all the "I AM" stuff Jesus had to say. You can't separate the two.

Also, Spong starts out by saying we can't know what Jesus was, then goes on to say what the Gospel writers clearly said He was: A guy who sided with the downtrodden. Uh, John Shelby? The Gospel writers said Jesus was, and is, God. You can't cite the Gospel writers to support your social revolutionary point and discount the main point of the Gospels, the overarching message of the Gospel writers: Jesus is Lord, God Himself. If you read the Gospels and miss that point, you have to be trying to miss it. REALLY trying.

Spong's scholarship beyond that is sloppy, too. He makes a strong negative statement about the current Pope, but offers no examples and cites no evidence to back up his point of view. (And no, folks, I don't want to leap into the debate that has been going on regarding which has been worse, the RC's or the atheists, etc., so don't lambaste me on that one.)

My point is that Spong assumes knowledge on the part of the reader that the reader doesn't necessarily have. He bothers to explain himself on his citing of the Gospel writers (even though he purposely misses the giant neon sign about Jesus being God), but he doesn't bother to support his argument - actually, his damning accusation - of the current Pope. Such argumentation wouldn't pass a high school debate tournament.

This is the same way he approaches all of his arguments, in every one of his books. Same old, same old.

The Catholic Church only cares about rich people? Hmm. The New York Times seems to think otherwise. Let the headlines roll...

CARDINAL FISCHER IS DEAD; Archbishop of Cologne Was a Leader in Christian Labor Unions. July 31, 1912, page 9.

LABOR'S RIGHT TO ORGANIZE; Argentine Catholic Congress Urges Its Recognition by the State. May 29, 1919, page 5.

Breslau Cardinal Shields Catholic Labor Groups. June 29, 1933, page 1.

CATHOLIC LABOR BODY BANNED IN MUENSTER; Head of Big Union Is Accused of Fighting Program of the Nazis' Labor Front. September 17, 1935, page 14.

-That's right, Hitler was a big fan of the Pope. In fact...

CATHOLICISM'S END HELD AIM OF NAZIS; Indirect Means Employed to Destroy Church, Bishops Are Told in Welfare Report - Washington, October 14 - Complete destruction of the Catholic Church is the aim of the present regime in Germany, the National Catholic Welfare Conference reported to the general meeting of Bishops here today. Indirect rather than direct means to this end are being employed, the report stated, but it was held there is on foot a designed attempt to suppress Catholic life.

POPE HAILS PEACE AS TEST OF JUSTICE; Tells Women Workers Unions Are Beneficial... August 16, 1945, page 2.

Bishop Urges $25 a Week Jobless Pay And Hourly Minimum Wage of 75 Cents, September 4, 1945, page 15.

CHURCH IN SPAIN SEEKS NEW ROLE; Catholic Labor Unit Grows With Primate's Backing, August 13, 1962, page 3.

SPANISH CHURCH REBUFFS REGIME; Rejects Attack on Activities of Its Labor Movement Repeated Criticism, September 16, 1962, page 12.

Prelates Announce Their Full Support for Labor In Spain. July 26, 1963, page 4.

I am not making these up. I am just skimming through old New York Times articles and grabbing the most obvious ones. There are plenty more where these come from. There is also an encyclical called "Rerum Novarum" and a well-thought-out theology of "just wages" that goes back to Thomas Aquinas. For the past 100 years, people have said that the Church scorns poor people because the Church opposes communism. Turns out Communism actually tends to make people poorer (compare North Korea to South, or East Germany to West, or Taiwan to Tibet), so opposition to Communism actually helped combat poverty.

Of course the papacy has always been interested more in the rich, they have more to give. They can support luxury and golden crosses, thrones, chalaces, crowns and a beautiful mansion founded on hypocrisy. This is how all kings and the "God on earth" should be treated.

How many true Christians has the Roman catholic church ordered killed in the last 2000 years? Millions! The "Church" is the largest, oldest and most powerful politcal organization the world has ever known. No one can deny that or say otherwise, that is a fact. One day the Catholic chuch will burn in HELL, its rightful home!

All Catholics are blind to the truth on true Christianity which The Roman Catholic church is not. DOWN WITH THE EVIL PONTIFF!!

Of course the papacy has always been interested more in the rich, they have more to give. They can support luxury and golden crosses, thrones, chalaces, crowns and a beautiful mansion founded on hypocrisy. This is how all kings and the "God on earth" should be treated.

How many true Christians has the Roman catholic church ordered killed in the last 2000 years? Millions! The "Church" is the largest, oldest and most powerful politcal organization the world has ever known. No one can deny that or say otherwise, that is a fact. One day the Catholic chuch will burn in HELL, its rightful home!

All Catholics are blind to the truth on true Christianity which The Roman Catholic church is not.

Rev Spong,

I come from a poor family in a poor country. I personally know some poor people from third world countries that have received assistance from Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

How many poor people have you personally helped? How many genuinely poor people do you count among your friends? Let's look at your pro-poor credentials vis-a-vis those of Benedict XVI. Then we'll see who is the real hypocrite!

Tony.

Hello RS,

No complaints except for the fact that you over simplify...history, politics and religion are complicated.

Showing only one half is a good way to misrepresent movites of an individual or group.

Why did was the Church close to authoritarian govts. as opposed to communist govts.?

This is the real question that should be asked as opposed to making it sound like the Church picked Franco or Mussulini out of the blue...

It was the reality of the war, of rabid anti-clerical of communism and general survival.

To present it as "the Church loving fascism" is to misrepresent.

Feel free to question the Church but present the whole picture when you do so. Life is messy!

Most of the critical posts personally attack Spong but fail to address the key points he makes. Does anyone really contest his key point that Jesus "took his stand alongside the poor, the marginalized and the dispossessed"?

Also,I think even the Pope's supporters would admit that he and his predecessor clamped down on priests and nuns who served the poor with a "liberation theology" perspective, and favored views aligned with the wealthy establishment.

Finally, Spong implicitly acknowledges that many Catholics have done good work grounded in their faith. Although I'm not Catholic, I have been awed by the great work done by brothers and sisters in Latin America under very dangerous conditions. Falsely labeling them "Marxists" does them and the people they serve a great injustice. But whatever you call them, they will continue to do good work guided by their spiritual beliefs and not by your armchair critiques or, I hope, any Pope's misguided power politics.

speed123:

My post does not say the Aztecs were not brutal (they were) or that only religious-inspired fanaticism has resulted in atrocities. Neither do I deny the crimes of Stalin and Mao. My post said that Church-supported tyranny has not been unusually benign and gave examples (I did not say other forms of tyranny were not vicious) and that fanaticism and bad politicians that are the real problems (neither of which is exclusive to Catholicism).
I notice you do not challenge anything that actually is in my post; you object to me saying things that I'm not actually saying.

Of course Liberation Theology is for the poor, the wretched, the hungry. Add to that the opiate of the masses too - religion. And add lashes of dissent against the sins of greed, avarice and gluttony of the materially rapacious and to chaff at the vast carelessness, indifference and selfishness of the rich and powerful.

Seems that way doesn't it? Until they become well-off themselves.

Uhhh...Mexican migrants to the US may also want to live the American Dream. In spite of seemingly dismal jobs and pay, it is still jobs with pay. Nothing wrong with capitalism, as long as one have a slice or bits of crumbs of the "capital" cake. It is the greed and gorging for a bigger slice that you can't need and is more than you need that needs some questioning. Can't have that (Huffing and pufffing, huffing and puffing).

Poor, hungry and wretched of the world unite! You have nothing to lose. Really.

Have I sound Marxist, socialist, pinkie, reddish, leftish enough? Or have I sound anti-capitalist, anti-globalist? And where is the teachings and examples of Jesus in all of this for the sick and the poor etc?

.....and so it goes.

I am saddened by the fact that Christians actually wrote these comments. Anyone who reads this who has previously posted to this conversation take stock of what you wrote and if you think your maker would approve. I stopped reading because it wasn't very enlightening. All people were doing is bashing a man who seems to have at heart what the real messages of Jesus were. STOP DRAWING LINES IN THE SAND! Stop saying, oh he's this so that makes him bad, stop attacking other people for believing something other than what you believe. Spong called upon the Catholic church to be more Christian... and it seemed by the comments that whether you agree with him or not, whether you are Catholic or not, that the majority of what anyone had to say was to cast criticism. It's sad and unfortunate that no one can step back and remember what it is they are fighting about. Maybe if they did they could put aside there differences and actually act more Christian by applauding someone for calling clergy and the general public to do more and to be a better persons. This is the first time I read an "On Faith" article and has proven to be the last. Because that is the last thing you can find in all the comments I have read... Faith.... * apologies and exceptions to any comments that weren't in the tone in which I am speaking.

Luke wrote:

"What was Torquemada"?

Torquemada was the first one appointed Inquisitor General by the King and Queen of Spain. You are right, they used Catholicism as a weapon, but Catholics did object to it. One man does not speak for the whole of Catholicism. The pope himself wanted the inquisition stopped more than once. Torquemada was used to advance the political desires of the monarchy, not Catholicism.

Hey Mark,

I think that you may be able to dig it up at the library and it is worth a try since you get to see the thinking of the pope before they are the pope.

He is a very impressive theologian, as well.

I will be taking Hitchens new tome out of the library as well - since I dont want to boost his ego anymore by another book sale ;-)

Have a good one!

Last post:

Here are some abuse numbers that the media doesnt like to give out because it provides CONTEXT for the incidents in society.

Accused Catholic clergy: 4%
Accused Protestant clergy: 8%
Accused Jewish Rabbis: 11%

No numbers about public schools but it is around 15%

Abuse happens at ALL levels of society. The media focuses on the Church because....... (draw your own conculsion)

Speed123 writes:

"As for Marx, I am currently reading "the future of an illusion" by Freud and once I get through that little didy I will make my way to Marx. It will be a Jewish revolutionaries week for me!

As for you, why not read up on the theology of Cardinal Ratzinger - "Truth And Tolerance: Christian Belief And World Religions"

Thanks for the comment, Speedy. I will stand corrected in my claims that you won't bother to read Marx and look forward to your comments on Marx post-reading.

As far as the Ratzinger book - I'm currently in the midst of a re-read of "Thus spake Zarathustra" (always heavy going for me) and an on-and-off read of Paul Krugman's "The Great Unravelling." I'll be spending 6 hours on a plane this Weds where I plan to do a second reading of Christopher Hitchens' latest effort ("God is not Great"), and I'm hoping to get started on Isaacson's new Einstein Biography this weekend, after which I'll be looking for some new reading material.

Is Ratzinger's book available at libraries? I'd like to get away with not shelling out real money if I can avoid it. Thanks for the recommendation.

Bishop Spong - as usual is right: In this case:
1. Jesus is a social revolutionary
2. Organized religion, in this case the current regime in the Vatican, is on the wrong side of the issue of poverty as well as on the wrong side of a lot of things.
3. Choose Jesus, like Spong, and you'll be on the right side of the issue.

Just take a gander at the documentary "Deliver Us From Evil" and see how the Catholic Church treats its own who were abused by their priests while the sexual predator priests are allowed to wander the planet freely. It is simply horrific. But if people WANT to be treated like that by their "leaders" then there is nothing we can do to stop it. However, do not expect those of us who see the hypocrisy and cruelty perpetuated by the world's largest corporation (The Catholic Church) to stand by quietly.

What was Torquemada, Jesus' little brother? The Spanish monarchy used Catholicism as weapon, and they sure as hell didn't object to it. You break it, you buy it.

Getting intense there Mark and you know what they say about what happens when you make assumptions...

As for Marx, I am currently reading "the future of an illusion" by Freud and once I get through that little didy I will make my way to Marx. It will be a Jewish revolutionaries week for me!

As for you, why not read up on the theology of Cardinal Ratzinger - "Truth And Tolerance: Christian Belief And World Religions"

We can both become enlightened together, of course, that is, if you are interested.

Mr. Mark,

Did you not read my post? It clears up a great many things.

speed123 -- THANKS! I'll look out for it. And, yes, if it's possible "Collapse" is even better than GGS. Which says a lot.

sw

I guess if you can't argue Spong's point(that Jesus was on the side of the marginalized while Pope Benedict XVI is and John Paul II was not), you resort to Spong trashing. Who gives a crap about Spong's faith journey? Discrediting Spong is completely ineffectual for demonstrating that the Vatican promotes social justice. If the Popes can be defended as speaking out for the powerless (or less powerful), then defend them.

I'll do it.

Lev Nikolayevich [Leo] Tolstoy.

sw

Isn’t Liberation Theology caught in a fate acompli with capitalism? With over twelve million aliens in the U.S. *most of them from Mexico and further south* one would think this theology to bloom here as well. It is not happening.
To blame this on capitalism is wrong. Once a person’s penchant for money is realized this theology seems to be abandoned. Like scripture says it’s not the money, but the love of it that destroys.

"It is called reading between the lines and knowing the ending....collectives, executions, church burnings, starvation."

You can't read between the lines when you haven't read at all. Your posts make it clear that you've never read Marx and know little about what he wrote. God forbid you actually learn something about a topic PRIOR to shouting your opinions on it.

SteveiB writes:
"How anyone could read Marx and come away with the impression that Marx is somehow concerned with power is beyond me."

Speedy123 answers:
"It is called reading between the lines and knowing the ending....collectives, executions, church burnings, starvation."

No, it's called willful, deliberate, self-celebratory ignorance.

Riddle me this, Speedy: how does one read between the lines...when they have yet to read the lines in the first place?

StevieB is correct. He called you on your ignorance on the subject of Marx, but for some reason, you can't just slither away and accept the debating defeat. You feel the need to launch a pathetic and transparent non-defense of your ignorance.

Look, we all know from your past posts that you aren't currently employed as a blurb writer endorsing books written on the subjects of logic and deductive reasoning, but one would hope you could just admit that you - like everyone else - has gaps in their knowledge.

As far as your having to do some "catching up" on what Marx actually wrote - I would imagine that roughly 100% of we On Faith bloggers know that you will never bother to go through with your threat to better inform yourself on Marx. You know you won't bother and we know you won't bother, so why the games?

On the other hand, perhaps a trip to your local haberdasher is in order!? It looks like you need a larger hat through which to speak on subjects incognito.

Hi Strangely,

Thanks for the recs; I have read a bit of GGS off and on and have heard that Collapse was good as well.

For the other side of politics in the European wars I would suggest "Sacred Causes" by Micheal Burleigh on the issues of political religions of Facism, Nazism, Bolshevikism and the Church response.

speed123,

I love you. too.

Hahaha. Do you get it?

I have 2 really good books for you to read by Jared Diamond: 'Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" and "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed."

This back and forth would be greatly informed by their study. GGS was a 1997 Pulitzer winner.

sw

Luke:

But the Inquisition was controlled by the Spanish monarchy, not the Catholic Church. In fact, on more than one occasion the Pope at the time wanted it stopped, but the monarchy refused. The Inquisition was actually politically rather than religiously motivated.

First, I have to get something out of the way. Near the beginning of this discussion someone commented on Trotsky as the writer of War and Peace and no one has called him on it! I'm disappointed. Also, this discussion has gone way off topic--nothing but tangents about which group is more evil based on the past behavior of individuals espousing a particular view. Catholics aren't tainted by one man's behavior any more than atheists. The issue of the article was the behavior of one man and whether his actions were justified.

RS presents another one-sided view of history and fails to mention the amazingly brutal Aztecs or Mayans (typical liberal idea of the noble savage) or the communist atrocities in Spain, Russia, or anti clerical massacres in Mexico and France.

Love to point out the history of the Church and gloss over the blood soaked political movements/ideas from the left.

Mao and Stalin didn't use the anal pear or iron maiden, my friend. That was all YOU.

Oh, forgot.

Karl Marx was trying to make a reality of the CHRISTIAN ethic that Luke enumerated in Acts 4:31-35 KJV.

"From each according to his ability to each according to his need."

Read it for yourself. Karl thought that laissez-faire capitalism had ruined Russia under the Tsars and was trying to return to a Christian marriage of economics and politics. He spoke out for a reformation.

His ideas were unworkable but his intent was noble. When Pope Benedict XVI makes his unbelievably uninformed comments I wonder has he even read the bible? Appearently not. As I have shown.

Or, could it be he is so jaded and cynical that he is banking on humanity's not having read it so he might say whatever he pleases with impunity?

Which do you think it is?

sw

Stalin and Mao - secular atheist leaders - were VERY original in terms of disregard for human life.

"How anyone could read Marx and come away with the impression that Marx is somehow concerned with power is beyond me."

It is called reading between the lines and knowing the ending....collectives, executions, church burnings, starvation.

As the song goes: "Meet the new boss...same as the old boss."

As a Pole John Paul was first and foremeost an anti-communist, a man who new the face of communism well and saw it as the greatest threat to his faith and those of his countryman. Liberation theology was in his eyes to close to Marxism for his comfort. Since Constantine Christianity has had to battle with the Faustian bargain it made-and so too the Church down through the millenia. The rich(or less pejoratively the prosperus) build the churches, pay the bills, and in return expect the Church to be grateful.It has worked since Constantine's time and it still does today.When you write that check to your charitable organizations do so without any expectation that you are seeking gratitude or gratification(and definitely not because you expect salvation in return). Do so because of the inherent goodness of our humanity.

Thank you RS...thank you!!!

As an old Jewish man I consistently wonder why anyone would read a book written by old Jewish men and believe it in spite of the evidence of the reality that we all can see. Religion is a creation of humanity, originally probably invented by the powerful to control the weak. Nothing has changed.

Um...original? I guess when it comes to disregard for human life you have to make sure to site something ORIGINAL. Real cute, Speed.

The genocide of native peoples in Mexico alone by the Spaniards (with the full support of the higher-ranking Catholic clergy) had millions of victims, so let's not pretend that Church-supported tyranny was particularly benign. The Church actively supported Fascism in Catholic Europe (including pre-Hitler Fascism in Austria), not least in Spain and Portugal, which had the longest-lived fascist regimes ever, and right-wing dictatorships (and monarchies!) in Latin America (though individual priests often had a more honourable position).
The Gospels clearly state that Jesus said a camel would have an easier time going through the head of a pin than a rich person entering Heaven, and told rich people that sought his advice to give up their wealth. He rejected the temptations of earthly glory and wealth. The contrast between this and the behaviour of most Catholic politicians needs no further comment.
The problem is not Catholicism, or Catholics, or the existence of the Church, but instead the evils of fanaticism and brutal politicians (which is why some Popes have been much better than others).

I read the Bible...lots of fluff, needs an update and a little consolidation.

Speed 123: You stated that you have some "catching up" to do on Marx. You should have left it at that rather than stubbornly clinging to an opinion that only underscores how much "catching up" you need to do. How anyone could read Marx and come away with the impression that Marx is somehow concerned with power is beyond me. Then again, you haven't read Marx have you? Sadly, like all too many Americans, you refuse to let your ignorance get in the way of your opinions.

Come on Luke! Cant you come up with something more original that that...you're no Dan Brown ;-)

Lennon and Marx! Hahahahaha!

Actually, the Firesign Theater came up with that one on the cover of "How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all?", which is well worth listening to in these troubled times.

Ed is basically saying what some of us in this thread are saying, just change a few words:

"Please read THE BIBLE, not those who claim JESUS as their ideological basis. Please quit asserting THE WRITINGS OF JOHN SHELBY SPONG as the example of CHRISTIANITY. It's intellectually inaccurate at best, dishonest at worst."

As far as the arguments that have grown out of Spong's swipe at the Pope and the RC's, well, that's what Jack Spong likes, because it keeps him in the realm of being "controversial".

Remember! He's the audacious cleric who risked being slapped with a doily by the House of Bishops when he dared to make a career of trashing Christianity! Daring! Outspoken! Risky! Just ask him! He'll tell you! Again and again and again!

Traveling Episcopalian: thanks for the view from the ground....the rest of us are just arm chair philosophers/critics on this topic.

How about the Inquisition, ever heard of that? Seems like such common place knowledge ever heard of Google? My God (or lack thereof).

I keep seeing Luke referring to Catholics murdering people - I wish he'd say when these murders took place, so that we all know exactly what he's talking about. This is a pretty long thread to have to read every post to try to find the the entry that might have his reference...

John Paul II was a hero, as was Ma Teresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., Ghandi, and a myriad of others. Compassion is not limited to a single religion - anyone can have compassion. As an atheist, I hate to see those in poverty and will help whenever I can. My religion doesn't make me anymore morally bankrupt than yours.

My previous entry was directed to the entire blog - not to the specific post by "Stevieb", whose comments on Marx are irrefutable.

I am struck by the unbelievable intolerance of "right-thinking-Christians". It's mind-numbing. I actually was taken aback when a self-serving Evangelical Christian quipped: "It's true Jesus said to not judge others, BUT that once a person becomes a Christian Jesus requires us to judge each other."

I couldn't believe my ears. Did not this overtly self-consumed zealot recognize the appalling irony and stupidity of his utterance?

No.

So too, do many posting here. Bishop Spong is a ray of hope and rationality in the time-honored prophetic tradition that is most welcomed and needed in these troubled and troubling times. I am heartened that so many hear his words with wonder and joy.

Yet, it makes me wonder too that so many are deluded into life's booby prize of believing in unbelievable things as a badge of courage and poor consolation prize in the rejection of the big wide world. Faith is not believing in unbelievable things. Faith is acting in spite of our baser selves to promote healing in the world -- beyond mere belief.

Christian belief seems to be acting in accordance with our baser selves to undergird an unworkable system of beliefs that have outlived their usefulness and then being nasty about it.

Or so it seems to me.

Thank you, Bishop Spong, for speaking out. I love you for it. You have no idea how much.

sw

What a bunch of crap! John Paul II - fought for the rights of disenfranchised catholics, christians, and non-christians all over the world -
As far as the Church not doing enough to protect the Jews in World War II - ask the Head Rabbi of Rome what he thought about Pope Pius XII - he thought the Pope was a saint and converted to catholicism - now as far as the Episcopal church -if the former Bishop was talking about his own church he might be correct - though I hate to generalize afterall I'm not a bigot like the Bishop.

OK - Ed, youve got me on Marx - I have to do some catching up; however, I have a feeling that you have idealized this man's theories. Power, not equality, was his main objective beyond all of the rhetoric.

As for your assertion on the Pope: "the Pope should concern himself more with the impoverished and less with the powerful or wealthy."

I would like to see an arguement to prove that point since so many are stating this as a "tag line" of this thread.

Sounds like Catholic baiting propaganda to me...

I want to address the notion of criticizing the church as a whole for failing to care for the poor of Latin America.

After living in several countries in Latin America, I came to have a deep respect for the RCC's dedication to the poor of Latin America. Catholic priests are there, advocating for the poor, providing many health and educational services, and sometimes risking their own lives to expose the attrocities committed by the political leadership at various points in LA history.

I cannot confirm or deny that, at some level, the catholic church has not gotten involved with some of the dirty players in Latin America, but I think it is important to keep in mind that a number of churches have done the same. The largest growing Protestant church in LA, particularly among the Latin American elite, which shall remain nameless, has a quite an illustrious history of getting in bed with the questionable players in Latin America.

I work to pay my bills, does that mean I have a materialistic world view? God won't pay my mortgage!

Actually, it does add up. It proves how morally bankrupt you are to say that respect for human life is what caused the Catholics to stop murdering people. Ofcourse, because of people like you, you prove exactly why we shouldn't believe. You are no better than Stalin or Pol Pot because I am sure if you had half a chance you would burn us all at the stake. You can blame liberalism and you can blame communism, but that is the reason why you are a silent minority who can't see the bigger cause. I have to at least give you credit for not saying that it's a lack of Jesus that causes these things to happen, but I'm not buying this "Pope good, atheism bad" thing. If you are going to argue, then Buddhists are a heck of a lot "better" than your religion, as are Hare Krishnas and pagans.

Yeah, what StevieB said.

Just like reading the Yankees and the Red Sox blogs - merely change the names and history and there you are!

Although Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot may have called themselves "communist," their brand of communisim had little in common with the teachings of Karl Marx. Karl Marx was a utopian writer whose vision of the Socialist state has never existed or come close to existing in the real world. And by the way, how can any Christian disagree with the notion that those who have should be concerned with the plight of those who have not?

Speed, please go back and read my posts. If you're having trouble with any of the concepts, please just ask for clarification, don't just ignore them or try to play the games you've got going with others to gloss over them. Your history is intellectually faulty and I'm highly questioning whether you've actually read Marx or just listened to others talk about him.

And please quit repeating catch phrases. "Materialist world view" is meaningless in the ways that you're using it. Provide an argument, not a tag line, and maybe some learning can happen here. Otherwise, all I ask is that you quit linking Marxism and Leninism in your posts. It's not accurate to do so and I would think that we would all strive for accuracy in our comments here.

You people are just popping off here. When this day ends what will you have gained?
A harder heart, another beam in your eye, a pacified ego? Good gracious laws a massy, go fishing, plant a garden, something, anything but at least get the hate down to a simmer. John S.Spong what would your parents say, did they teach you to be the judge? Is that what you learned in the word, or is that what the world has taught you? - Harrumph-

Not everyone chooses to buy into the propaganda of organized religion--whether Catholicism or anything else. Skeptics and dissenters are not bad or wrong. They just choose to think independently for themselves. I am a former Baptist who is neither Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan nor Atheist. I frequent churches open to all faiths and I take comparative religion classes, and read books to expand my own personal views and understanding of God as I see fit. My faith has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the Divine.

Having read more, I'll restate for emphasis...Lenis was not Marx. Lenin bastardized Marx for his own purposes and created a Soviet state that was evil, but not because it was Marxist. True Marxism has never, and may never at this point, be tested, in particular as it is an evolutionary process that cannot be forced onto a people as Lenin attempted to do. Please read MARX, not those who claim him as their ideological basis. Please quit asserting the Soviet Union as the example of Marxism. It's intellectually inaccurate at best, dishonest at worst.

So Ed...

Who was a more proficent communist leader (i.e. executioner) Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot?

Please approximate a consensus or learning on this topic for us.

And if the members who claim the church to be allied with the wealthy over the poor...perhaps they should give an example for their accusations.

Just because it does not subscribe to a materialist world view does not mean that it is "holding down the masses"

Hi "TroubledGoodAngel" :

I appreciate your response to my assertion that Jesus was a Marxist - obviously, that is an oversimplification, but, materially, the two had a tremendous amount of overlap. If not Marx, Jesus more closely resembles the idealism of John Lennon.

The controversy raised by Spong's column is this: the Catholic Church (and its figurehead, the Pope) seem to be downplaying or ignoring Jesus' anti-materialist, anti-nationalist and pacifist gospel, and is instead obsessing over gay people, sex, and embryos. Billions of people are suffering in the world, and the Church is too busy waging the Culture Wars to pay attention.

It's no wonder that many Catholics (like me) become disgusted, disillusioned, and turn into atheists.

Please, please, please stop referencing Soviet Russia as "communism." Given all the requests for intellectual honesty and people to learn before they speak, please learn the difference between what was practiced by Lenin, Stalin, or Mao and what was written about by Marx. This oversimplified discussion of "communism" is fine if you're a politician running for office, but if this is actually an intellectual discussion meant on achieving something approximating consensus or learning, then we should be using some of these terms more carefully.

And, please, saying that the Pope should concern himself more with the impoverished and less with the powerful or wealthy is hardly a bigoted statement. It's an interpretation of recent history and current events. You are welcome to disagree, but someone questioning the consistency between Jesus' teaching and the actual activities of the church does not make them a bigot. You may not think there is any tension there, but the person pointing it out is not a bigot.

A few writers seem to think that service to the poor is somehow the equivalent of Marxism.

I really don't recall Jesus saying to his disciples, 'Go forth and promote state ownership of the means of production.'

Pope John Paul apologized for these events in history already, but I guess you are holding a grudge.

That being said, I think numbers matter in such comparisons.

Thousands in the Inquisition or Crusades (both initives of monarchs rather than the Church) or HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS in communism countries that we not even at war!

This difference is due to respect for human life and the theory of personalism as opposed to the materialist world view of Marx.

Sorry, Luke, moral relativism just doesnt add up.

I guess a Catholic theologian could rewrite history better than anyone. Like you would know what the intentions were of your predecessors. Ofcourse we have faithlessness with people like this adhering to the faith. You are poor representatives of your faith in my opinion, as you have more than enough and squander it. Kudos on your successful business, but it won't get you to heaven I assure you.

Mary C,

Thank you for those examples of some who have lived their faith everyday in service of others. That does not, however, prove Spong wrong in his assertion that the Church is aligned with the wealthy. If I listed two wonderful athiest leaders, who served in selflessness, would that change your, or Speed's mind of athiests?

Speed123, what you are doing is taking the point off of your religion's diabolical acts against the religions of others and focusing only on the good it brought to the world. That's understandable. You choose to ignore the Inquisition and the efforts to persecute those who called for advances in science (if the church were still in power we would still think the world was flat, I'm sure), and that's understandable...but you can't throw the accusation that atheism is responsible for the same atrocities your religion is, because that means you are a hypocrite. Ofcourse, that is awfully typical of the religious right, of which you are a part no doubt.

Being a Catholic theologian, as I am reading through these posts on the "inadequacies" of the Catholic Church, I perceive a spirit of monumental confusion and faithlessness! There are several issues being mixed together. First, there is the central question: Was Jesus a revolutionary? Then there is the question: do Popes favor the aristocracy? Then there is Mr. Spong's implied charge that "Jesus was a Marxist." Then there is the accusation that "the Catholic Church is only interested in preserving the status quo." And finally, someone even said that "power is bad, and therefore the Catholic Church is bad since she is powerful." It is difficult to make a sensible synthesis out of multiple nonsensical and false premises. But I will try, nonetheless: I will do this by first providing the right answer to each, and then bringing all my answers to a common denominator. Yes, in many respects Jesus was the greatest of Revolutionaries: He changed the whole world for the better with His Cross! He gave meaning to the lives of all human beings! He gave Hope of Eternal Life for all! The price: His own Body and Blood! The slogan: "Believe in Me"! The revolutionary song: "Our Father." The revolutionary leader: the Holy Spirit! Secondly, do Popes side with the rich? I would call it a Robin Hood type of relationship, the only difference being that Robin Hood took by force, but the Church only accepts what it is offered. The Church is a in-worldly enterprise that needs resources to sustain self, to do the missionary work, and to help the poor. Some property needs to be snatched from the world, in order to be redirected to the poor. The rich are invited to pitch in as much as they can, so there is enough for the poor and the unbelievers still in need of evangelization. What about "Jesus being a Marxist"? First of all, Marx was an atheist and Jesus was God! The two just do not mix. As God, Jesus stood for justice for all at all times. Giving to the poor was a prerequisite for being His disciple: "give all to the poor, and come follow Me." No private property mattered to the true disciples: Jesus was their Treasure! The dispossession was voluntary. Does this mean that he was a Marxist? Absolutely not! The self-emptying of His disciples was a free act of love, not forced expropriation! Is the Catholic Church defending the status quo? She both does and does not! Although she tolerates a degree of economic stability to be able to do the work, every act of the Church is forward-looking and forward-moving. Every Sunday preaching is focussed on making greater spiritual progress and social progress. The aim is never to stand still, never to be satisfied, never to accept what is evil and unjust in the world! The aim is to save ever more souls as the Church transits to heaven! Finally, is the Church bad because it is powerful? Nonsense. There are two powers in the world: good and evil. The power of the Church is dedicated to goodness and justice. In the absence of this power, the evil powers in the world would dominate the world! Synthesis: a revolution can be a blessing or a curse; giving one's possessions to the poor is a noble and necessary act; the Catholic Church is a good power, but she must never cease from striving to be better, carrying out the work of God in the manner that Christ did, with total love and justice for all, even at the cost of the Cross!

Writes Spong and DA:"The catholic church has a very long history of allying itself with the rich and the powerful. In fact, it has ALWAYS been allied with the rich and powerful."

-- YOu are SOOO right, DA. Those Franciscans sure do love the rich!

-- And John Paul II too. In Gdansk amongst the 'rich and powerful' Solidarity workers. One of the greatest men of our age and he died with nothing and left nothing. Sure was rich and powerful, eh? Well, powerful yes. But surely not rich.

Let;s see, who else?

-- And Mother Theresa. Out there every night on the streets of Calcutta-- amongst the rich and powerful. And to think, she even cottoned up to the (really)rich and powerful to get their money to give to the ehmmm 'rich and powerful' dying on the streets of Calcutta. She should have said: "No, no, no. Keep your filthy lucre." And let the 'rich and powerful' of Calcutta die on the streets.

How about some English martyrs?? No, we won't go there. However, I would like to hear about some Episcopalian martyrs though...y'know the kind who sacrificed everything to serve the poor/ defy tyrants/&tc. &tc....

Over to you folks.

Jacob,

It's to bad modern religion is a "not-for-prophet" business these days...

I am fine with questioning; sterotyping or using revisionist history is not kosher.

Yes, Mary, in 2000 years Catholicism has done nothing for scholarship, learning and art ...riiight....you are a smaaart one, yourself.

Why would a church focus "missionaries" to already Christian lands of Europe and the US??

You bring up typical Marxist tripe ... religion as the opiate of the people. Interesting how the "freedom" that Marx promoted turned out in history...

An amusing lead comment that I couldn't resist. I was told by a respected clergyman in the RC church back in the 60's that Vatican II had some decisions that were not promolgated to the public. One was to give up effort on converting people in the US because in the US and Europe there was too much education and democracy. Both these traits are dangerous to RC religion. The greatest effort, the Vatican II decided, was to be in less educated and less democratic areas such as South America and Africa. (They wrote-off Asia for the next century.)After 50 years this is coming. The RC church thinks in terms of centuries.

100 million dead through secular, reasonable communism in Russia and China.

The Catholic Church was one of the only institutions strong and resolute enough to go against this nightmare of history.

Dont like to give credit to this monumental feat?

Speed 123, I'd bet, is a Catholic integrist -- in layman's terms, a Catholic Fascist.

Catholicism was the antechamber of European Fascism.

Yikes! Nasty people - almost all of you! Go away from the public space and heal yourselves. Stalin killed people so RC church is good. Episcopalians used to be richest, (they aren't any more bye the way) so they are bad. If there is a god, my only prayer is that (s)he deliver me from the people who claim to speak in his/her name.

Enaughton,

Don't they all?

What these comments show is that religion has nothing to offer modern mankind. It's not even the opiate of the masses anymore. It's more like the nicotine of the masses.

I dont believe in either capitalism or communism; I am not a democrat and certainly not a republican.

We can agree to disagree, Luke; but you are taking your agrument against the church to absurd levels.

This pope is a theologian, and a unmarried man with no children who has dedicated himself to thought and to God. I do not call this living in excess or dictatorship.

Yes, he happens to live in the Vatican because that is where all popes reside - and while you decry "excess" I am sure that you do not decry the architecture, history or art by the world's masters who glorify both God and the creative acheivements of man.

Drop the Marxist rhetoric about the Church as the root of all evil, decedant, etc. etc. and we can converse.

I agree there have been and are problems and think that the trauma/revolution of the reformation and enlightenment - even recent media scandels - are good for the long run.

You may not agree with the church on its main doctrine for members but it does not give you licence to demonize it.

I dont know why I find the iron maiden funny, but I do :-) Must be the 80s band.

Devil's Advocate:
The catholic church has a very long history of allying itself with the rich and the powerful. In fact, it has ALWAYS been allied with the rich and powerful.

-- YOu are SOOO right, DA. Those Franciscans sure do love the rich!

Spong knows his audience, and he panders to them. End of story.

Wow, Luke, you were right! Got my beat-down stick, but I have a little more reading to do first.

I spent most of my adult life in the Armed Forces of the U.S. but between the ages of 16 and 20 years old, I was a Roman Catholic seminarian. I have not attended church as a traditional Catholic believer since the day I left seminary, 31 Oct 1972.

But in all fairness to the church, I must hasten to add what we were all told in a homily by one of our seminary professors during Mass. He was more or less quoting/paraphrasing an American R.C. theologian who was very popular at that time.

Basically he said that in all humility he had to admit as a Catholic theologian that the ethos of Jesus Christ did not exist in the world BECAUSE of the church but in spite of the church. I have never been able to forget that little nugget of truth.

All I have to say Jim...is BOOSH. To that, I must agree. He certainly isn't writing checks to South America, eh?

I'm not a believer, so I really don't have a dog in this fight. But before I turned to the Dark Side and renounced Christianity, I distinctly recall reading the passages that the Bishop refers to: Jesus did indeed minister to the poor and the disposessed, and he exhorted his disciples to do likewise.

But I'm not surprised that the CEO of Christianity, Inc. doesn't go out of his way to promote charity. Where's the profit in that?

Speed123, can't we just agree to disagree? That way you can avoid the starvation I would place upon you and I can avoid the iron maiden (unless Bruce is involved)?

Back at ya Luke my man!

Russell D.! Always a pleasure.

Speed123:

I have a simple question for you. What are your beliefs and what are your politics?

I am a Jew, who has completed the Rites of
Christian Initiation for Adults at St. Catherine of Siena Church in Great Falls, VA.

Spong is correct, and most thoughtful Catholics that I meet agree with him completely.

The current Pope is a very big reason I did not complete the process, and accept conversion to Catholicism. Every day, his Papacy lets Satan take a tighter grip on the souls of Catholics, and other monotheists. Pope Benedict does this by ignoring the principal ways that the devil works his evil at a time of peace: That is, by allowing social injustices to go unpunished, and unfettered.

Hunger, fear of incurable illness, the constant threat of violence against the family...all these are practiced by the feudal aristocracy throughout South America.

I despair how completely Pope Benedict is "cherry-picking" from the social doctrine of His Church, in order to satisfy the elites.

Bennett

I am willing to find neutral ground - but we never do. You don't want gays and lesbians to get married or have rights, but you still want them to pay taxes, am I right? Your idea of neutral and mine are completely different. Some things are so severe that there is no neutral ground. That is why, regardless of our religious beliefs, we will always hate one another.

Thank you, Bishop Spong.

I appreciate your tireless, compassionate voice in solidarity with the poor and dispossessed and for your invitation for us to learn more about and come closer to the "religion of Jesus," as Howard Thurman so effectively described Christianity.

OK, so I am taking it a little far, but this whole idea that Catholics don't have a bloody history is nonsense. EVERYONE has a bloody history. The more we throw accusations around, the less we are accomplishing with real issues (starvation, war, etc.). You must admit it is irritating to hear that every person who has died in the last 100 years is the fault of your own system of beliefs. If you want to blame it, fine. I'm just not letting you get off the hook by saying "Well your faith killed more, so mine is better" nonsense. Ofcourse, it would be more believable that the Pope cared about human life if he didn't live in excess...that's all I'm saying.

"I don't wish to get Christians to shut up, I just don't want them in charge of anything that influences my life if I can help it."

This is really where religion in general falls down."

The problem, anonymous, is the intolerance of liberal for view points and their idea - much like those held by certain religious fundamentalists - that their ideology is the correct one.

Leftists feel free to enact "liberal" social policies and then declare them as netural.

On the other hand, if a religious group seeks to influence government in the same manner you cry foul.

Tell me what is the difference - they are both forms of doctrine and seek to keep the other from infringing on the lives of their members.

The ideal that a "liberal" agenda is a neutral agenda which is good for all the people is the propaganda used by your side to enforce the totalitariams that you decry.

According to Speed123, Torquemada was an atheist and a communist...go figure.

I have an education, I just don't believe in an institution that has stolen everything it has, murdered innocent people and erased their history, and now cries out for peace. That's fine, you every right to believe in it, although your it doesn't pay testament to your critical thinking skills. That's OK, why don't you just burn me at the stake or filet me like you would have in the past? You know why? Because the ancestors of the pagans and atheists you murdered throughout history would have you on stakes lined from here to the Vatican. A Catholic's faith in God is only as deep as his pocketbook, and as humanity comes closer to relief from the rich tyrants that occupy the seats in Saudi Arabia, the Vatican, and the White House, hopefully this religion will be little more than a memory.

Suggested reading from Candide:

Dan Brown, "The Da Vinci Code" (New York, 2003)

Simcha Jacobovici "The Tomb of Jesus" (Toronto, 2007)

"I don't wish to get Christians to shut up, I just don't want them in charge of anything that influences my life if I can help it."

This is really where religion in general falls down.

If you believe in your religion, *really believe*, then everybody who doesn't is clearly doing something wrong [and depending on your faith, they may suffer endless torment for their decisions].

Thus, the obvious, compassionate thing to do is to set up a system to help everybody obey the rules which you know to be right.

The result -- a drive toward totalitarianism.

It is only when you accept that you *might* be wrong that the concept of pluralism seems to be appealing -- with the resulting constitutional democracy that operates under majority rule with sufficient protection of minority population sets as the solution.

If Jesus really existed and really was the son of God, then the Pope's attitudes and beliefs are not unreasonable. The problem to many of us is that we don't believe the underlying mythology -- and absent that there is no basis for the behaviour.

The Catholic Church is the most evil institution in history next to the SS.

Suggested reading for Luke:

Michael Burleigh:"Sacred Causes: religion and politics from the European Dictators to Al Qaeda" (London, 2006)

Niall Ferguson: "The War of the World: History's Age of Hatred" (London, 2006)

(Both also published in US). Ferguson is a professor at Harvard, Burleigh an ex hist. prof at LSE and Oxford.

I do think that Spong's charge about Catholics identifying with the rich and powerful, coming, as it does, from an Episcopalian--probably the wealthiest church on the planet and, with its dwindling numbers, wealth per parishioner gaining wealth every day--is wonderful! It's rich, you might say.

When the Epis. church gets down to three members-- and 3,000 clergy--will they redistribute *all* that wealth to LatAm?

Time will tell. I for one will be watching with interest.

Hitler...a favorite subject of Catholic haters.

Guess what? He was a former Catholic and was a rabidly anti-clerical and thought that the Catholic Church was out to destroy him.

Luke, do us all a favor: get an education, some critical thinking skills and then come back to these boards.

Anyone will take any philosophy and skew it for personal gain - you aren't exempt so stop pretending you are. If the Pope thinks it's so sad that people are poor, maybe he should sell some stuff or hold a bake sale rather then wave his hands and get older.

Then what enabled YOUR religion to wipe out entire civilizations, the virgin freakin' Mary?

Are you kidding, Luke.

You dont think that their philosophy enabled them to commit murder on an unknown scale in world history??

Do you not see how reason and progress (and atheism) were used to justify slaughter that the world had NEVER seen before.

We are not talking about war here; it was all internal: 100 million through starvation and collectives and purges.

Sure, and persecution begat persecution - Catholics sure as hell aren't innocent of it. Your religion wiped out entire civilazations, but that's a moot point because you are Catholic, and that automatically means peace even if you are killing people. I am not saying that power is bad, power doesn't do anything but exist. People do bad things with the power they have, and abuse it no matter what school of thought or religion that adhere to. Hitler (a Catholic) murdered millions of Jews...so what is your point again?

Really Christians are nice? Funny, every Atheist and Satanist I know is nice, but only 2% of Christians. Just because you believe a Jewish boy was the son of God doesn't make you nice. Speed123, I agree that communist leaders have been terrible people. I'm just saying that it is not necessarily the philosophy or school of thought that causes the people to murder others. I don't see why you don't understand this. I don't wish to get Christians to shut up, I just don't want them in charge of anything that influences my life if I can help it.

Luke,

Immediately after Lenin took power in 1918, he arrested ten of the main Patriarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church and summarily shot them. The Soviet campaign against Russian orthodoxy was unrelenting, & would be repeated against the Catholic Church in Eastern Europe when the Russians took power there, post 1945.

The Soviet ideology was avowedly anti-religious, and specifically antiChristian. The Russian Orthodox Church was almost completely destroyed, the Catholic churches of Eastern Europe delivered only because of Soviet economic collapse & the joint efforts of Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II.

Your 2nd point is that:

Power is bad.
The Catholic Church is powerful.
Therefore the Catholic church is bad.

You are making at least two logical errors and, anyway, your first assumption is false..Power is not bad--ask the people of Iraq where there is chaos, no one powerful enough to keep order, if power if bad.

Jesus was not a Marxist, Stephen. While you can read it that way if you only look at certain aspects of teachings etc.

Marxism is a materialist philosophy and that is certainly not in line with the teachings of Jesus. It is about liberation, but not MATERIAL liberation.

As for martyrs, of course Catholics celebrate sacrifice - check out the hundreds of saints etc. However, Catholic sacrific is about choice: the martyr chooses to sacrific him/herself in the name of faith.

The sacrifice commited by communist leaders was that of sacrificing the masses through starvation, collectivization or murder in the name of communism and human progress.

Big difference!

But back to the author of the screed that started all this, the Great Spong...

I LOVE the response from E Favorite:

"Jake Means -- Are you a Christian? If so, the love Christians are known for is not showing through in your remarks."

I love it because it exposes the most common attack of the Spongsters and other revisionists who seek to shut up Christians with whom they disagree. Why, if you criticize, you must not be Christian! Remember, Christians are NICE, and saying something critical of someone else is MEAN! For shame! Hate Speech, Hate Speech! Whoop whoop whoop!! (That's the Hate Speech Alarm. Imagine red lights flashing).

Now there's been some rather nasty comments in this thread, but my remarks about bro Spong aren't among them. Oh, I'm not gushing with praise, as do his disciples, but I've merely pointed out the truth. The guy doesn't believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior, spent his entire career as a bishop trashing the basic tenets of Christianity (but still cashed the paychecks), and the last time I heard him (hawking his lastest book, remember, "Jesus for those who want to lose their faith, or already have no faith, or otherwise are as enlightened as I" or something like that)he really didn't sound like he believed in anything at all, except how smart he is.

I don't think it is un-Christian to say that, or to further say I feel sorry for the man, a deluded buffoon who has traded the most amazing treasure in the world for his own point of view, which he recycles again and again in his tedious books, with all the originality of a cow chewing on regurgitated cud. What? Jesus not the Savior AGAIN? Christianity all wrong AGAIN? What, everyone else has got it all wrong AGAIN? That's funny...that's what his last book said, too...

Hey Jack, sorry for being so smart alecky, but let's admit, you deserve it. And as much as I can't stand your books or your point of view, I have to say, as one miserable sinner to another, it's never too late to say "Yes" to Jesus and turn around. I hope you do! Return to the living water and chuck that stale stuff you've been swilling (and peddling!) for years. You'll be glad you did!

Sounds like a good read to me!

Looking at most of the folks who post here, I would say that John Spong is definitely the athiest's prelate (ex-prelate?) of choice! Maybe now that he's retired, he can make a new career for himself, similar to Richard Dawkins. Of course, what with Crossan, Armstrong, Sam Harris, &tc. already there the field is getting mighty crowded.

Better get going on that book, Mr Spong. How about "How I Lost Jesus and Found an Audience: a retired bishop's path to atheism"?

Yeah, I come from a long line of devout Christians. If Catholicism is the theory of personalism, they haven't been such great practicioners of it. Communist leaders may have been the most awful people on Earth, but you sacrifice the point to save face for your religion. Power corrupts. It doesn't matter if you are the Pope, a pastor, or an atheist, if you have the power to hurt people for personal gain, chances are you will. Communist leaders don't even believe in Communism. They are dictators, just like every other. Call them what you will, but attributing those murderous regimes to simply "atheism" or "communism" is irresponsible.

To (Ex) Bishop Spong:

Re:"Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor John Paul II have consistently put themselves on the side of the aristocracy, the landowners and the well-to-do in Latin America."

You cite not one shred of evidence for this blatent bigotry, bishop. You should be ashamed! And, anyway, people in glass houses....

It always astonishes me that members of an *extremely* wealthy church like Episcopalian with maybe 4 million members (dwindling fast) who spend very little of their funds abroad, can point a finger at the Catholics who run an immense establishment in LatAm servicing hundreds of millions of Catholic faithful with thousands of priests,thousands of churches,schools, universities, hospitals, hospices.

The Episcopalian Church used to be called "the Republican Party at prayer", its members were the good, great and yes) wealthy of the USA. Does that mean *your* church has consistently identified itself with the rich and powerful??? How about proportionately the number of schools, hospitals, hospices, &tc. Episcopalians have funded in LatAm?

Why, when you'd never make a racist taunt, do you feel completely comfortable airing unsubstantiated, untrue(!) anti-Catholic accusations? Have you just substituted one form of ranting for another?

Speed123 seems to be missing the critical and irrefutable point behind Spong's article: Jesus was a Marxist! He rejected the idea of private property, and was a "social revolutionary."

And how can you say that Catholicism doesn't rationalize the sacrifice of innocent people - Jesus himself was sacrificed, and God kills innocent people (cancer, disease, famine, wrath) all the time in the Bible / today (if he existed) to promote His higher will (which true believers can never question or understand!). God's ends justify his means.

Marx just eliminated the superstitious mumbo-jumbo behind Jesus' political agenda - not that I (as a mainly libertarian atheist) necessarily agree with it. But Spong is essentially right - Jesus would be more interested in addressing poverty than bashing gay people.

Many historians of Latin America have remarked on the terrible coming together there of all the faults of Spanish culture and Indian cultures. This helps to explain that no progress is ever made there.

Go to www.choosejesusrightnow.com & click on BUMPER STICKERS.

My point concerning communism is that human life is expendable in the pursuit of reason, science and the "new man."

Famines, collectives, and mass murder were just some of the tools of the "rational" communist for herding the human cattle at their disposal.

Catholicism is the theory of personalism - every life is unique and cannot be subsumed/sacrificed into the larger mass movement.

OK - maybe that was a bad example...considering that the spanish episode happend 500+/- years ago and the rational, science based logic of the communist purges happened only 50 years ago.

What progress...my bad.

It is obvious that there is no use in talking to you, Luke. Interesting screen name for an atheist, btw.

Ha ha ha. I was about to support your argument until you threw in the communism vs Catholicism thing. Sure I guess that the U.S. is far more evil than the Muslim terrorist organizations they are fighting because the tactical weaponry we use is sure to kill while a roadside bomb has a better chance of simply maiming. Good argument, Speed. Also, I guess that roasting someone alive is far nicer than killing them outright. Typical Catholic belief - that death is the worst thing that could possibly happen, but living in torment is a blessing as long you are alive. I am sorry that you find my statements crude, Someone, but accusing a religious group of slaughtering 100 million people (falsely at that), is kinda crude too, eh? Or maybe you don't think so because you agree?

Hello someone, thanks for the reminder on civility...definitely something important to remember.

In any case, I am not saying that atheism kills, Luke; I am saying that atheism or theism can be used as an excuse for killings and to acheive political ends. It is a corruption of both.

As for communism vs Catholicism - when you confessed during an inquisition (carried out by the spanish monarchy, not the church, btw) you were allowed to live. However, when you confessed to subverting Satlin's secular and rational state you were executed anyway.

As for the conspiracy theories and the pope is the antichrist people - I will call you out for the idiots and bigots that you are.

Luke:

That's not sarcasm, that's hatred and prejudice with some crudeness thrown in for good measure.

Back to the topic at hand, religion doesn't kill people, people kill people. I just don't think you should make it seem as though Catholicsm isn't as bad as other religions because they killed less people. If they could have, they would have killed or converted everyone in the world, just as any other religion could and probably would have. I really don't think you can argue that, but go ahead and try.

Someone, take it up with someone who gives a damn. It can be as widely acceptable as one can skew and warp it to fit their lifestyle - but it has never and will never fit mine. See Someone, you discovered a little thing called sarcasm, pretty neat, huh? It gets your point across and offends people in the same statement! I use it all the time! I have read the Bible, not studied it. It's a great tool to getting kids to fear premarital sex and listening to rock music, but I've grown out of it. Maybe your 3rd graders should too.

What do I have to be, the rude behavior police around here? You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, acting like 3rd graders in a forum for adults.

Speed123, I've come to expect more from you than the typical rants. Calm it down, please.

And Luke, you're just being rude now, and there's no reason for that.

And if you're going to talk about the bible like you know something, then you should know that it is widely accepted that certain parts of the bible were written for certain people at certain times and only pertained to them. Believe it or not, you might actually have to do some studying to truly understand something that was written that many centuries ago.

I'm not pissed that you bring it up, I just think you are full of it. It is very rare that atheists kill as a conversion to atheism. More than likely, it is muslims killing christians, protestants killing catholics, etc. Sure the person ordering the killing may be an atheist, but they don't do it in the name of atheism. Also, back it up. Which atheists killed all of these people? Also, I must add, that if no one with a conscience (something rare in your religion's history) stopped the killing and conversion of other civilizations, they would continue to this day. If you admit that your religion changes/adapts, then aren't you admitting that at many times, your religion was WRONG? Oh for shame, maybe your are full of it.

100 million, Luke.

More that "religion" killed in 2000 years.

You seem pissed that I bring this up.

Iron Maiden! Ha!

That's funny, I thought that the church didn't adapt, because the Bible still says the same things it always has. Speed123, if you aren't out stoning sinners, then shut up.

Has the Church made mistakes? YES

Does it change/adapt? YES

This is a huge institution and to talk about it as a monolith is wrongheaded. While the Pope has say on doctrine, what is done on the ground level varies just like in any other mega institution or gov.

But you are right...Jewish International Bankers and the Catholic Pope are out to rule the world!!!!

I wish more people could see this just like all of you! Please leave your mothers basement and spread the warning!!!

Concerned:

Spong did not answer the question "Was Jesus a social revolutionary?" What the pope today does has nothing to do with the answer to that question. The condition of any particular church today has nothing to do with the answer to that question.

It is clear that the papacy is only interested in preserving the status quo, not bringing about lasting change to citizens of the world or even improving the lot of its own flock. The church is reputed to be one of the biggest property owners in the world and has amassed a huge fortune, which is accruing interest instead of serving the people.

In this light, it is clear that Mr Spong not only answered the question, but put it in the appropriate context: where do the loyalties of the church lie? With God or Mammon?

What good does saving people's souls do if you indirectly hasten their departure from this world by watching idly as they starve?

Sorry, that should have read "not catholic, not anti-catholic". I guess my true colors shine, eh?

I am anti-catholic because I think that it is a just like any other big business that has shed blood in the name of Christ so it can make money - and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Mary was just a womb - there were plenty of other virgins (she was probably raped by a Roman soldier anyway). The Pope is an idol just like any other - he's just a white-clad Paris Hilton with no DUIs because he always has a designated driver in his stretch limos. Atheism isn't the problem - it's hatred and a intolerance - which your faith, speed123 is rather guilty of, is it not? Bishops, Popes, are just as evil as any other person, they just have a dead savior as a guise. Blessed be.

100 million dead in 100 years in the name of secular, atheist progress isnt so bad, right?

Candide wrote:

"based as they are on native Indian passivity and Spanish imported fecklessness."

You're showing your true colors today, aren't you?

Or were you quoting someone and forgot the quotation marks?

A Vatican official, Cardinal Tardini, under Pius XII once said that Vatican diplomcay began with Peter's betrayal of Christ.

The Catholic Church has always supported tyranny. In the 19th Century when the Poles revolted twice against Russian oppression the Vatican reprimanded them and asked that they obey the constituted authorities. When Hitler began to kill Jews the Catholic Church did very little, more at the bottom less at the top.

The Church's role in Latin America has always been poor. Those poor people are a mess, based as they are on native Indian passivity and Spanish imported fecklessness.

First of all, Spong is an EX-bishop. He's an EX because his beliefs drifted so far from the beliefs of Christian bishops that he couldn't truthfully call himself a bishop anymore; it's a far stretch even calling himself a Christian if you read how far he's distanced himself from core Christian principles.

Second, he didn't even answer the question with his post. He started out sounding like he was going to answer it. Although he did make some kind of dig at the scriptures having interpreted Jesus "in terms of Jewish images and Jewish expectations." Well of course they did, He was Jewish, wasn't He? What Spong ends up with instead of an answer to the question is an attack on the papacy. Now, I am in NO way defending the pope, but that was not the point of the question at all. The question is "was Jesus a revolutionary?"

If people are going to be Forum Panelists, the least they could do is answer the questions, instead of using the Forum as an opportunity to boost their own agendas.

Titus you bring up a very good point. If we squander our fortunes and let others starve we are just as guilty of murder.

I know plenty of catholics, like myself, who think the Vatican has sold out the people for an aristocratic world view. The leaders have placed abortion and gay issues over the issues of Jesus which are poverty, war, hunger, and sickness. If Islam can thrive without a caliph, perhaps we should find out if catholicism can survive without the stoopid papacy. I think catholcism will thrive without the foolishness.

Pope Benedict didn't go to Mexico or Peru? Guess he's keeping the Aztec's and Inca's gold. He had a golden opportunity to do as Jesus would have done, return stolen property to it's rightful owners, but then what would the church use to make the sacred articles, chalices to hold the body and blood of Jesus for example.

Would Jesus really return stolen property or just forgive the thief for passing in on to His church? The Conquistadors paid for their tickets to hell with Aztec and Inca gold.

Frankly, I don't give a damn!

The Vatican has always been attracted more to power than to Christianity.

Just because a lot of people died in Leo Trotsky's book,"War and Peace", doesn't mean Leo killed all those people. For these "murders" only happened in his book.

For your clarification,
Your Muslim Brother, Abdul.

Want to see a real human wasting political "machine" in action, Thinking out loud?

Read up on Stalin and Mao.

Hyprocrite.

Here's a tip.

Read Matthew 7 and tell me which "christian" churches are on the broad road leading off into destruction, and which are on the narrow and cramped road.

Jesus later in Matthew 7, didn't dispute that there were many claiming to do works in his name but he said "get away from me, I never knew you workers of lawlessness".

Seems pretty clear, many claiming to be christian, are clearly not following Jesus example, and that's what Jesus expected.

So the real issue, isn't whether the catholic leaders are social revolutionaries or not, but whether they are genuine christians.

Look at history, and convince me the history of the catholic church followed the example of Jesus. I honestly don't see they did. Looked pretty political and power grabbing to me.

Same with most of the "major" christian religions. They are political machines.

Consider these:
Why was Tyndale murdered? For publishing an english bible..

Michael Servatus? For being open to debating Calvin on church doctrine VS the bible.

And there are hundreds if not thousands of examples.

What would Jesus have done to these 2?

Seems to me that some Christians only like people that believe in the same things they do. If people use their reason and scholarship and come up with something different then what the preacher says, it can never be the preachert that is wrong. It is understandable, no one likes their faith shook. I guess having someone give their own view cracks the foundation of other's faith.

Can we find middle ground? I think a lot of us will agree that Bishop Spong's opinions on how little of the Gospels he says we can really trust are a major issue for a lot of people. But neither do I think there are not major issues in the RCC--certainly there are. I just think that Bishop Spong's words would carry a lot more weight if he had more trust in the historicity and reliability of Scripture. What good is a "bishop" who doesn't really believe the Scripture that his title would lead people to think he believes?

its spoused God protects people but opposited...i m looking for any religions that no sick ,old or died but no answer some said after the death ,looking for peace in bible at 3 middle east religions only fired n fight thousand years til now ,our cold war religious still burning ..i l see at the zoo,sea world people learn ,communicated with animal easy but with higher must kiss hand or foot before have a communication realy funy rules no equal its no peace i hope our country learn a good lesson

Jake Means -- Are you a Christian? If so, the love Christians are known for is not showing through in your remarks.

Speed 123 - fancy seeing you here, among all the bigots, and characteristically short on Christian love.

The catholic church has a very long history of allying itself with the rich and the powerful. In fact, it has ALWAYS been allied with the rich and powerful.

Just check out the Opus Dei, the semi-secret and extremely powerful organization within the Catholic church. They supported the Nazi regime wholeheartedly and every right-wing dictatorship in Latin America.

Right now, they are actively working to counter populist and/or left-wing sentiment in Latin America. The Catholic Church establishment only deals with the powerful and despises the downtrodden.

In other words, the Catholic Church's support for right-wing, fascist, regimes, is nothing new.

Benedict whatever-his-number is just a perfect representative for the Church.

Ah, John Shelby Spong has come down the mountain to enlighten us...

Look, this guy has already written a bunch of books, but every one of them should be titled "I lost my faith, and you should, too."

Here's a man who made vows to protect the faith and instead he's made a career of trashing it.
If he really had any integrity he'd have hung up his collar and left the church. But instead he let his diocese in NJ go to pot while doing his best to get the rest of the Episcopal church to do so, too (did a pretty good job, Jack! You certainly did your bit to point it toward the iceberg!).

He has always traded on his standing as a bishop in the Episcopal church to get people to listen to him, so maybe he figured it was better to keep the collar, than be just another garden variety shmoe who doesn't believe in anything (besides his own intellect). Plus, the pension is pretty nice.

I used to think that Spong had simply lost his faith in Christianity, which of course is obvious, but after hearing him interviewed while hawking his latest tome ("Why I think Jesus is not the Lord, and you should think so too, because I'm smarter than you, and a bishop after all, and that's what I think", or something like that), I now realize he's simply an atheist.

I love the way he posits that Christianity must change or...(cue dramatic music) DIE! It's pretty hilarious, but for the fact that he's bound to confuse a few poor souls along the way.

Spong:
Stay in your Catholic light religion and leave the Popes alone.

Bishop Spong: you are not far from the kingdom of heaven.

The Catholic Church is an Authoritarian Power
so it Protects Authoritarian Power

Like all well established churches, Catholicism is first and foremost a political organization.

If its theollogical interests conflict with its political interests, the Political interests will win out.

not Justice. Not the interests of the poor. Power.

The Pope's first job is to protect and consolidate the Church's power.

JESUS NEEDS YOU TO TELL US which editorial are you respnding to because it sure isn't the one Mr Spong wrote?

Thank you Mr Spong for pointing out what should be obvious to so many but isn't.

it is obvious that the lord really needs you to tell us what he thought about things that he never addressed in life. how lucky we are to have you pass on the thoughts of the almighty to those of us so far down that we cannot hear, and therefore need your kind help, the murmerings of the lord.
maybe you should write a book "what god really wanted to say but did not have the time"
i would be very anxious to know what he tells you.