Losing Faith in Old Traditions

Don't look at this unless you are in good
mental health...(which may leave most of you out.)

It is not every book that comes with an advisory...

This Creativity scholar author claims all that stuff you label as religious, is just the Collective Unconscious breaking through
in a form that fits your culture.

He can cite both Physics and the Romantic
poets in the same breath, so has a good range.

Tell me this is not up your alley:

This book is concerned with a taxonomy of the cognitive representation of numinous experience arranged in a hierarchy. The theme of the book addresses itself to the most important issue which exists for man: how to get in touch with the ground of being (the numinous element) without losing ego-consciousness.

See http://www.csun.edu/edpsy/Gowan/

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports that Catholicism in America has lost more affiliated members than any other faith tradition.

There are reportedly 67.1 million Catholics in the U.S., according to The Official Catholic Directory 2008. Compared to the 2007 number of 67.5, that's about a 400,000 decrease in one year. And the Pew Forum found that approximately a third of its survey respondents who were raised in the Roman Catholic Church no longer attend the church.

Clearly the superstition that is Roman Catholicism is dying in North America, as it has long been dying in Europe.

RobRoy wrote:

"Now, there is no credible Biblical scholar who would say a first century Jewish rabbi would NOT include homosexuality into the category of sexual immorality. Thus, Jesus' blanket condemnation of sexual immorality most certainly included homosexuality (and incest and pedophilia, etc., other things that "Jesus never talked about" but he did with this blanket condemnation.)"

You are not only a fool, you are also arrogant. You presume now to speak for all rabbis, biblical scholars and Jesus. Your protests are excessive. One begins to think that your real hatred is for yourself.

You object to inclusivity in the christian church. Most who do are full of hatred, suspicion, and ill will. I am grateful to see these people leave the church. They leave a church filled with true christians who understand and practice love, tolerance, acceptance and the christianity that has for so long been absent in the majority of mainstream fundamentalist churches. I say more power to them.

Robroy, I am sorry for you that you hate gay people and I am sorry that you feel the need to drag Jesus into your personal turmoil about sexual orientation, to justify your hatred.

Conservative men who have an exagerated hostility towards gayy people, are often gay themsevles. This is not intended to be an insult, since I do not hate gay people, and do not consider being gay a bad thing.

It is simply and merely observation, which I think might help you, if you were ever to give it serious consideration.

Stadtbear writes, "Rob Roy, you are little more than an articulate fool." and "Read the whole Bible."

Well, at least I am articulate! ;^) I would also suggest that you read, Matthew 5:22 "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment....But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

Stadtbear quotes Mark , "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him." Unfortunately, he doesn't continue on for just a few more verses...

"He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, SEXUAL IMMORALITY, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

Now, there is no credible Biblical scholar who would say a first century Jewish rabbi would NOT include homosexuality into the category of sexual immorality. Thus, Jesus' blanket condemnation of sexual immorality most certainly included homosexuality (and incest and pedophilia, etc., other things that "Jesus never talked about" but he did with this blanket condemnation.)

I would like an example of a single denomination that opted for "inclusivity" (which is nothing but a euphemism for homosexual clergy and same sex union blessings) that hasn't crashed and burned. Look at the United Church of Canada, look at the Swedish church, look at the Episcopal church (the fastest declining last year), Look at the UCC (the fastest declining this year). So you want to kill your denomination - go "inclusive."

After Spong was done with the diocese of Newark, a third of the clergy was homosexual. Blatant homosexualism. The disaster was/is in shambles.

"The bible is full of interest.
It has noble poetry in it, and
some clever fables, and some
blood drenched history, and some
good morals; and a wealth of obscenity;
and upwards of a thousand lies."

Mark Twain. In Letters from the Earth.
Quoted in "Atheist Universe". by David Mills
Ulysses Press LA.Calif.2006

Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible doesn't prove anything. This should be obvious.

All it does is reflect how a person thinks, and shows a certain awkward and limited ability for valid and critical thinking, which further undermines whatever argument is at hand.

It is kind of tiring to over the same old thing again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and and again, and again, and and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and and again, and again, and and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and ....

It is monotonous, isn't it?

“Though such evidence for the Bible's veracity isn't the sole foundation for one's faith, it is one pillar upon which it can rest securely, as mine does.”

Psalm 22 in the JPS, Hebrew bible, reads:

"My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my throat; and Thou layest me in the dust of death.

For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; LIKE A LION, THEY ARE AT MY HANDS AND MY FEET.

I may count all my bones; they look and gloat over me."

In the KJV, the same verses are translated as:

"My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And My tongue clings to My jaws; You have brought Me to the dust of death.

For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. THEY PIERCED MY HANDS AND MY FEET;

I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me."

So the question is: which bible are you talking about? Is it the Hebrew bible or is it the one Christians manipulated to fit their own theology?

ouch!

I meant "ancestors who thought the world was flat" in my last post.

Carstonio;

Liked your posts and your excellent logic.
Really interesting to read - and learn from.
No question the debate goes to you.

Regards CN

To Heaven4sure;

You write...
" But the Bible contains the best news ever for every single person reading this and everyone not reading it. The Bible has a hopeful message for you. God hasn’t written off anyone in this life on this plan."
-------- -------

What is the good news?

I guess it's the bit about living forever,
never having to die - right?

The Bible was written by ancient scribes who thought the world was round, and were completely ignorant about everything else.
The were superstitious to a fault, and thought the sky was the Heavens.

And you want to believe what THEY say about existence? But they knew nothing.
They can teach us nothing. We know much more about the world than our ancient ancestors could ever imagine. And because these ancients say there is a skygod, and say if you BELIEVE in him - you will live forever in Paradise, SO you believe in him.

It seems your fear of dying leads you to conclude you won't die - as long as you believe. Well, that's what the clergy WANT you to believe.It's their bread and butter. Having folks like you believe the Wholly Babble to be true - keeps the hucksters employed. Which is why they want children indoctrinated as young as possible. It's the oldest scam of them all.

Nothing lives forever. ALL things must die.
Like cats and dogs and bats and frogs - we also die. To believe otherwise is absurd and even cowardly.

Face reality. It feels good being on the side of truth - even if the truth is not nice. Even if the truth hurts - at least it's the truth.

The news you claim is 'good news' is no news. It is reality management for the fearful. We have to rise above wishful irrationality. We are better than that.

Remember 9/11.

Finishing up...

"I never once intimated that such experiences are "irrefutable proof of gods"

Not you personally, but religions in general make assertions of fact about beings and phenomena.

"you've failed to establish why miracles must be factually inaccurate."

I'm not trying to establish that. I'm saying that we need proof of miracles, more than someone's word for it.

"then the burden is more on the skeptic to invalidate such claims."

No, because we have only the Gospels' word for the resurrection claim and for the claim that there were witnesses, and we have no corroborating testimony from sources that don't have the same agenda. Since the idea of resurrection contradicts everything we know about the universe, we need extraordinary evidence to substantiate it. Among other things, we would need evidence refuting the assertions by Judaism and Islam that the resurrection didn't happen.

"Be careful not to conflate scientific proof with legal/historical proof."

The former is required when considering assertions of things not known to be scientifically possible. That's the type of proof I'm talking about with any claims of miracles. The latter standard would apply for events that we know humans could cause, such as whether one nation invaded another.

Continued...

"I could no more prove them to you than I could prove my genuine love for my family, especially whom you've never met or seen. An obstinate skeptic could always find alternative explanations for outward observances of this abstract, ethereal concept of "love"."

While love has a biological basis, the concept and experience of love is in the human mind. It appears to have no existence outside the human mind, although the alternative may be possible. A being is not an abstract, ethereal concept, unless one is speaking about hypothetical beings. Again, either a being has existence outside the human mind or it doesn't, and it's misleading to compare that type of existence to the abstract existence of a concept.

This wouldn't be an issue if people who had such experiences did not use them to assert facts. I don't understand why they would be agnostic (in the generic sense) about causes of such experiences.

"religion in general (and Christianity specifically) doesn't always fall neatly into a rigid, scientific, empirically-verifiable worldview. If it did, there'd be no point or meaning to "faith" "

You would have a point if religions did not assert the existence of certain types of beings or phenomena outside the human mind. Any such assertions must be tested scientifically. Either those beings exist or they don't, and the question cannot be determined by faith.

"While no one believes Homer is pure history (including Homer), most believe the Homer they read today accurately represents the original."

But no one believes that the Trojan War originated with a wager among Olympian gods, or that those gods fought alongside the Greeks and Trojans. Those claims are different from the claims that Troy existed or that Troy fought a war with Greece.

"Anyone who presents such experience as irrefutable proof of gods needs to submit the experience for analysis."
I never once intimated that such experiences are "irrefutable proof of gods", verifiable by scientific means (i.e., outwardly observable from an independent party). I could no more prove them to you than I could prove my genuine love for my family, especially whom you've never met or seen. An obstinate skeptic could always find alternative explanations for outward observances of this abstract, ethereal concept of "love".

"The experience is not repeatable, falsifiable, or predictable."
Be careful not to conflate scientific proof with legal/historical proof. We cannot "repeat, falsify, or predict" Abraham Lincoln, or what it's claimed he said or did. Rather, the overwhelming weight of the legal/historical evidence tells us we can, for the most part, believe what's written about him in our history books. Though such evidence for the Bible's veracity isn't the sole foundation for one's faith, it is one pillar upon which it can rest securely, as mine does.

My part in this (already long-winded) discussion is over. I wish you well in your honest search for truth, and hope you'll email me for further discussion.

Peace, Dan (danroth777"at"yahoo.com)

Hi again Carstonio, as I've discussed already, religion in general (and Christianity specifically) doesn't always fall neatly into a rigid, scientific, empirically-verifiable worldview. If it did, there'd be no point or meaning to "faith" (2Corinthians "We walk by faith, not by sight.") We'll remain at somewhat of an impasse as long as you insist it must.

"We should not treat scriptures as though they are 100% correct"... Why then should your words (or anyone's) be treated as 100% correct? You've made a blanket assertion without justification or verification. Many works of ancient history/literature have far scarcer manuscript evidence than the Bible, yet their accuracy and authenticity is not so questioned. While no one believes Homer is pure history (including Homer), most believe the Homer they read today accurately represents the original. The question to begin with is, do we have good reason to believe the Bible today represents that originally written. I contended we do, you've thusfar refused to engage that point. Furthermore, archeology has repeatedly vindicated the Bible on historical points originally doubted (i.e., the existence of Ur, and Ninevah, and Pontius Pilate).

Of course anyone can believe "factual inaccuracies", but you've failed to establish why miracles must be factually inaccurate. If one starts with an anti-supernatural bias, then one will conveniently find any number of reasons to discount offhand any account of miracles. If multiple people claim, for example, to have simultaneously witnessed a man crucified, buried with Roman soldiers guarding the tomb with their lives... then resurrected (replete with otherwise unexplained empty tomb), and they were willing to die for what they claimed they SAW (not "honestly believed"), then the burden is more on the skeptic to invalidate such claims. Moreover, a scribe in ancient Israel was given minimal "artistic license" - rather, he was ascribed (pun intended) with the sobering responsibility of accurately conveying what the author said.
(cont in next post)

Rob Roy, you are little more than an articulate fool.

Prejudice against homosexuals or women is inherently sinful. Read the whole Bible.

A lot has been said about what Jesus did or did not have to say about homosexuality. Jesus Christ is the core of Christianity. Yet today many people seem to consider homosexuality to be the single most important issue before Christians. African Anglicans claim that homosexual acts are sinful. Others use the words of the Bible to deny gays basic human rights and equal protections, such as the right to marry. Or they use the Bible to justify abusing and even murdering gays. It is hard to believe that Jesus would have been completely silent about something so important. Yet the claim is that, somehow, he was.

But that claim is wrong. Jesus did speak of homosexual acts. Specifically he said:

"There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him."

Those are the words of Jesus Christ, from Mark 7.

The simplest thing to do is just to compare homosexual acts to that statement. Do homosexual acts involve something entering into a man from without? Why yes, they do. Thus we know by Jesus’s own words that they do not defile a man -- they are not sinful. That is simple, direct, and accurate. One either does or does not believe that Jesus Christ knew what he was talking about, meant what he said, and did not lie. Anyone who imagines that he finds something in the New Testament that contradicts this fact is, quite simply, wrong. Jesus Christ himself says they are wrong, and he should know. Period. End of story.

losing faith while holding traditions? the golden ones?

The Moral Majority and the Religious Right have singled out a handful of issues to tackle in society as if they are the only sin issues affecting society. They have politicized the Gospel of Jesus Christ and perhaps unintentionally have done a great disservice to the spread of the good news for every person on this planet.

Perhaps you are tired of hearing about the Bible and what it has to say about gays. The Bible has a great deal to say about many aspects of society today including greed, materialism, pride and all forms of sexual immorality. Yes, God calls all of it sin. None of us have anything to be proud of when it comes to a lily-white character. But the Bible contains the best news ever for every single person reading this and everyone not reading it. The Bible has a hopeful message for you. God hasn’t written off anyone in this life on this planet.

On the matter of 'who' God loves read this:

http://www.heaven4sure.com/MeandGodQuestions/LifeLessons/tabid/58/ctl/ArticleView/mid/387/articleId/183/Gays-and-Lesbians-Gods-Love.aspx

To clarify, I maintain that either claim (that gods exist or that gods don't exist) is unsupportable because the claims are neither provable nor disprovable. I also maintain that the first claim (that gods exist) bears the burden of proof because it involves a greater number of assumptions.

"There is far greater unanimity than variance in the moral codes of cultures worldwide, suggesting a standard that is somehow universal, or absolute."

We can't assume that such a standard would have been set by an entity outside of humankind. There are some theories about a moral sense being a product of natural selection, to aid in survival of the species. And there may be other possibilities. The goal is to determine which ones are more likely than others.

There are several weaknesses with any proposed hypothesis of all-powerful entities to explain events. The proposal makes numerous assumptions about such entities. It does nothing to explain why the event happened the way it did, since with such entities the event could have been anything. It does not allow us to preduct future such events, again because any future event would be likely according to the proposal. And the proposal does not allow for the possibility of evidence proving it wrong, which equates to no possibility of evidence proving it right. Again, the last also applies to assertions that such entities don't exist.

Danroth777,

We should not treat scriptures as though they are 100 correct or 100 percent incorrect. The works of Homer are acknowledged to be mixtures of fact, myth and legend, and this would fit scriptures as well. Part of scriptures do have some basis in archeological evidence, but that proves nothing about their claims of miracles.

"The authors would not likely have "inserted stories" (fabrications) they claimed to have been eyewitnesses to, and then later be willing to face martyrdom rather than recant what they knew to be lies."

That relies on the baseless assumption that scriptures accurately recorded their words and deeds. We must acknowledge other possibilities. Perhaps they honestly believed things that were factually inaccurate. Or the scribes had different agendas from the claimed authors.

"This is why I categorized some aspects of spirituality as "experientially" (subjectively) corroborative of my own faith for myself, rather than objective, empirical evidence for faith."

Would you describe such experiences? Anyone who presents such experience as irrefutable proof of gods needs to submit the experience for analysis. The problem is that anyone can claim to have had such an experience. There's no way for anyone else to determine whether the person is correct, is honestly mistaken, or is deliberately lying. The experience is not repeatable, falsifiable, or predictable.

Rob Roy

You are a big liar.

You think that people can only be happy if they are sexually reprssed and neurotically prudish?

Well, that is your problem, and that is Christianity's problem.

And another thing...

The unrelenting campagin against gay people, in wich you are a participant, is a wicked and futile practice which promotes false doctrinces. If that is the most important thing about being a Christian, honmophobia, then go ahead with it, and see how long before your corrupt religion rots from the ground up.

Why so close to accepting life without god but not yet there? I mean “...the mystery of a god who is beyond all limits”... that’s it, so abstract it doesn’t exist.
I don’t understand what the proposal is, though. What is this new form of faith he’s trying to explain?

"This is why traditional religion is in decline."

Traditional religion is not in decline. The mainstream denominations with their "neither hot nor cold" brand of Christianity which is quickly abandoning tradition is in decline.

"Modern, urban people are not going to trade in healthy attitutdes [sic] about sex for what the church has to offer, PERIOD!"

Casual promiscuity often driven by pornography twisted "ideals" is healthy??? This is the most ludicrous statement you make. I don't know anyone, liberal or conservative, who believes that. Modern, urban people have the least healthy attitudes towards sexuality since Sodom and Gomorrah. Hint: if you want a healthy, satisfying sex life, don't listen to Hugh Hefner but get married and remain faithful. (That is to say, do what conservative Christians advocate.)

"Christians promote doctrines against gay people which are obviously wrong."

Obviously wrong? Let's see we have the homosexuality is genetic fabrication (at most, it is less than 20%, certainly less than substance abuse). We have the "it's found in nature, so we should bless it" argument. A pheromone crazed male fruit fly mounts another male and we should abandon 4,000 years of morality? And polygamy and eating your young is found in nature, too. Insert specious argument after specious argument here.

"I suppose it is politically incorrect to seek the truth."

Finally we are in agreement. For Jesus says, "I am the way, the life and the TRUTH." It is most definitely politically correct to seek Him.

Also Carstonio, it occurred to me after posting to credit philosopher William Lane Craig with the syllogism I quoted. I highly recommend reading him for further analysis of your questions:
www.reasonablefaith.org.

America is losing faith in the traditional values of the Christian Church, indeed. But ask yourself, if Christians considered pro-semetic ideals, what would they be? ...

Exactly.

Could it be a possibility that traditional Christian values are hypocritical? Corrupted... or even Tampered with.

Why is Peter's identity concealed?

There many things that are translated into English, from Hebrew, that lose a lot of it's original meaning. Sure if you want to know what the authors of the Bible thought, you would have to obtain an original copy, seemingly have knowledge of all hebrew/aramaic/arabic/etc. texts of those times, and learn from the context of the numeral-lingual quality of statements.

now why would anyone want to do that?

(cont from previous response to Carstonio)
"Transcendant" (in a "spiritual" sense) is indeed vague from a merely scientific vantage point, and if that's the only one you are willing to operate from, we're destined to end up on different wavelengths. It's a bit like conveying chocolate to someone who's never eaten it - we can approximate, but not actualize the experience through description. (But try to tell the chocolate-eater it's all in her head!) This is why I categorized some aspects of spirituality as "experientially" (subjectively) corroborative of my own faith for myself, rather than objective, empirical evidence for faith. Answered prayers are quite another matter (again, email me if interested). So faith is indeed a "leap", but it by no means must be a blind, irrational leap upon considering the evidence - there's a strong philosophical and scientific platform from which to make that leap.

There is nothing at all "rudimentary" about the specifically human moral sense. There is far greater unanimity than variance in the moral codes of cultures worldwide, suggesting a standard that is somehow universal, or absolute. Some propose an absolute moral standard/code suggests a standard-bearer/code-writer. (see C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity") The fact that virtually every known human culture throughout history has been religious, despite failed attempts to repress it, also strongly suggests (though again, doesn't prove definitively) what Solomon writes in Ecclesiates 3:11: God has "set eternity in the hearts of men".

Peace, Dan

Carstonio,

You have several insightful questions and comments, space here obviously doesn't allow for comprehensive response to each. If genuinely interested, to continue dialogue in further depth, please email me at danroth777"at"yahoo.com.

Regarding eternal self-existence, "ex nihilo, nihilo". I contend a reasonable syllogism is 1) Nothing exists without a cause. 2) The universe exists. 3) The universe had a cause (therefore, reasonably, a causal Agent). I agree, order doesn't necessitate design, but it strongly suggests it. For example, there are several constants in the universe (rate of universe's expansion following big bang, gravitational force, etc) each of which, it's been found, has to be precise to an unimaginable degree to allow even for the universe's existence, much less conditions suitable for life-formation (see Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time"). It'd be like someone winning the lottery every day for years - you'd rightly think the system was "rigged". You wouldn't walk up a mountain, find a wristwatch, and think time, chance, and the weather conspired to accidentally form the watch. Likewise for the complexity of the earliest, most "primitive" life forms, which are actually more architecturally complex than New York City.

"no basis for elevating some religions' scriptures over others"? Here, I couldn't disagree more. "Assuming the Bible is historically accurate" is actually the fairest and most logical assumption given the archeological evidence. Large numbers of ancient manuscripts (including the Dead Sea Scrolls) lend strong credence to the belief that the Bible exists today with remarkably little variance over the centuries (mostly minor spelling differences). Moreover, they date from within decades of having taken place, which many historians (religious or not) agree is insufficient time, by historical standards, to allow legend or corruption to develop.
Regarding "self-fulfilled prophecy", it's pretty remarkable to think that Jesus could have "chosen" the method of His death, to fulfill Old Testament prophecy predicting death by crucifixion - see Psalm 22, where David prophecies one being "pierced in the hands and feet" (see also Isaiah 53). More remarkable is that in David's time, hundreds of years B.C., crucifixion hadn't even been invented yet.
The authors would not likely have "inserted stories" (fabrications) they claimed to have been eyewitnesses to, and then later be willing to face martyrdom rather than recant what they knew to be lies. To believe that requires quite a bit of "faith" on the skeptic's part. (cont in next comment...)

Yes, Jemoorman,but what Mr. Spong said was true, obviously, and by all modern standards of commonon sense. Are you saying that tradition, and a tendency towarsd old fashioned conservatism should trump truth? You are the one who doesn't get it.

This is why traditional religion is in decline. For example, Conservative Christianity, promotes an extremely primitive, antiqated, and unhealthy attitude towards sexuality. Modern, urban people are not going to trade in healthy attitutdes about sex for what the church has to offer, PERIOD!

The continued and persistent anti-gay agenda of Christians is another problem; Christians promote doctrines against gay people which are obviously wrong. As more and more people realize the BIG LIE, Christian credibilty is underminded.

I suppose it is politically incorrect to seek the truth, if it conflicts with traditional theology, and it would be better to continue knowingly to pursue false doctrines?

What do you say to that, Jemoorman?

To counterww;

You write;

"Spong is just a atheist that clothes himself in Priesthood... whatever that means to him.

I have more respect for Colin or other atheists as at least their illogical opinions are out there above board.

The truth is this- Jesus came, and revealed the compassionate side of the God know as Yehweh to all of us. He has always existed and is waiting for each of us to discover him."

--------------------

Not so fast Counterww. If the Bishop is not your kind of Christian - why flatter him by calling him an atheist?

Although - come to think of it - this being 2009 and not 1009 - it must be difficult to keep pretending that there's a God when He never shows Himself, never speaks, never does anything, never answers prayers, let's buildings fall on children, lets tsunamis drown hundreds of thousands of poor folk, and lets millions starve to death in famines in Africa, and permits endless wars.
So yeah, I can imagine that some priests will have doubts about their faith, and stay priesting because it's a job.

Mother Theresa lost her faith - as it slowly dawned on her that there was nobody up there, no matter how hard she prayed, and no matter all the good deeds she did, He never even said Thank You to her. Just like He didn't exist.

I'm mentioning all this because you say that my atheism is illogical. Phew! How about that? Religion can NEVER lay claim to being logical. To believe in an invisible SkyFairy makes no sense; to believe you will live forever in Fairyland is absurd and is supported by nothing.

It is a fantasy, probably pushed into your head when you were a child. now you think it's real and logical. That is hilarious and somewhat sad.

Book recommendation; "God; The Failed Hypothesis", by Victor Stenger. Now available in paperback.

Danroth777,

"order of universe and unlikelihood of its eternal self-existence"

Would you describe what you mean by "eternal self-existence?" We shouldn't assume that order absolutely requires design.

"cohesiveness and comprehensiveness of Scripture"

Which particular scripture? I know which one from your post, but my point is that we have no basis for elevating some religions' scriptures over others.

"unlikelihood of fulfillment of Biblical prophecy by coincidence"

That assumes that the Bible is historically accurate. The stories in the Gospels could have been added by the authors to bolster their case. Or else Jesus could have chosen to fulfill certain prophecies, such as riding into Jerusalem, to bolster his case.

"tangible, transcendent peace/hope/joy, spiritual growth and healing,"

Would you explain what those are? Terms like "transcendental" and "spiritual" seem vague.

"our internal moral and spiritual sense"

Rudimentary moral behavior has been observed in some non-human species. Would you explain how a moral sense would automatically prove the existence of gods? There doesn't seem to be anything relevatory about the sense. And what do you mean by a "spiritual sense"?

I should clarify that I'm not arguing against the existence of gods or for the falseness of any religion. I'm arguing for skepticism and for an analysis of all religions' claims using scientific principles.

Spong writes:

"The religious claim that any human religion possesses the ultimate truth of God is not only false but will inevitably die."

It never ceases to amaze me how the Washington Post manages to dig up every post-modernist heretic that they can find and effectively lend credibility to them as the "heralds of Christianity" by anointing them as "experts" and allowing them write in their "On Faith" blog.

Mind you, I have no objection to Muslims writing about Islam, Buddhists, writing about Buddhism, or any other religious group commenting on their own faith. Neither do I object to allowing other religions or even avowed atheists to post their objections to the Christian faith in a forum like this.

But, I do find it unacceptable to identify someone who whose beliefs are so utterly opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the creeds and doctrines of the the historic Christian faith as a "expert" on the Christian faith.

In just a few short paragraphs Spong denies not only the Doctrine of Scripture, but also the Doctrine of God - both unshakable pillars of the Christian faith. The New Testament is replete with assertions by Christ not only that there is absolute truth, but that HE IS THE TRUTH. The Bible also also assets that Scripture is "breathed out by God," and that to disbelieve or disobey the words of Scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God. An atheist, agnostic, or heretic can deny these beliefs. However, real Christians affirm these as essential truths.

In America, we cherish the freedom that allows an atheist to denounce God or students to denounce the government. And individuals certainly have the freedom to decry Christianity in any forum, including "On Faith." But to prop up the likes of Spong as some kind "Christian expert" is absurd. His post-modern spin on "faith" is so far on the fringe of Christianity that it would make his Anglican forebears like J.C Ryle, John Newton and John Owen wince in horror.

And, for a reputable newspaper like The Washington Post to showcase spiritual straw men such as Spong who masquerade as Christians, yet never once mention the power of the Gospel to save us from our sins, is a smite against all of Christendom. To quote your own catchy slogan, "you don't get it."

test

'Fess up! The Abrahamic traditions Judaism, Christianity, and Muhammadism are all bizarre “human” concoctions to address the needs of tribal nomadic peoples to justify the genocidal actions to steal and hold the lands needed to ensure the survival of their flocks of sheep! There major intent was to divide the people into us and them and override the inhibitions in the murder of fellow humans … and that has worked well. The Jews permitted the murder of men, women, children, goats, every living thing in the Godly righteousness. The Christians have their crusades, their inquisitions, and their heresies. And the Muslims have glorified the murder of infidels since its inception. All have their core mechanisms of , absolute control of human behavior using God as a blunt instrument of obedience.. except for the priests of course!
Christianity may be the worse of the bunch; adding economic exploitation to the priestly powers, The utter nonsense of the religious dogmas is stunning! The towering ideologies built upon straws of irrationality are beyond belief… but still believed by the gullible millions!
It is interesting to note that these “religions” all bear the name of their founders rather than their God!
The Christians have come to believe that the significance of their God’s incarnation was his brutal torture and murder; not his life or his teachings. They have imagined some horrible stain upon their God created bodies that only the super human sacrifice could wipe clean! Never mind that if Jesus existed and Jesus was murdered, that being a God and all; then this murder would be symbolic only…can you kill a God? As for the resurrection….can you kill a God? Do Christians really believe their God is pacified and worshipped by human sacrifice? Do Christians really believe that eating the body and drinking the blood of their God imparts some divine blessings on the ghoulish devotee? Do Christians really believe that giving their money to charlatan priests, speakers, ministers, et al to live lives of human leisure and wealth provide some benefit to their own desperate lives?
And, why does sitting at the feet of a God in eternal subjugation and adoration seem like a desirable goal of one’s human live?

One hopes that everyone would agree that "The Family" is the cornerstone of Society and Government. So might I suggest the collapse of the 'Family' [40% of births in the U.S. were recently tallied as 'Illegitmate", you know 'Out of Wedlock'] can be traced to the failure of "Religion" in it's many manifestations since the Reformation. Afterall statistics also show a preponderance of Americans believe in God and go tochurch. Could it be that the churches are failing to propagate "The Word" inherent in the 'Bible'? Failure to the point that we seem to have generated an "I'm OK, You're OK!" system of belief. In other words the churches have reduced 'responsibility' to "EGO"!
We would all be better served, if we understood that this diminution of "Authority" is the greatest threat to our idea of Democracy and survival, the threat to which our troops are deployed and engaged around the world. Reading some of the comments to this issue, one sees confusion and separation, where we should be seeing 'Unity' and 'Strength of Purpose'. When the "Word" is used to justify "death"[Abortion], amongst other cultural killing ideas, then surely those 'Teachers' have lost their way and 'Faith'! The "Lord" gave us all the intellect to reason and find our way to 'Him'. The evidence suggests we are straying further from 'Him'!
As a Roman Catholic might one suggest that the 'Way" and the 'Word', "On This Rock", has always been there! It is also the 'Way' to our survival as a Judeo-Christian Society. That's right, in Unity there is and always will be Strength. Diversity leads to chaos and death[See above]. "Unity" was Abraham Lincoln's saving message. Why do we ignore it?

Rob Roy wrote:

"Funny how the most "inclusive" (read we don't take any stands) are the ones that no one wants to join."

An absurd presupposition failure! To be inclusive is to take a very strong stand. There are several reasons why the "inclusive" denominations you mention are suffering a decline in new memberships, chief among them being the "stand" that supports women clergy, and the "stand" that supports the rights of homosexuals.

Rob Roy wrote:

"

Spong denies all fundamental tenets of Christianity, yet he doesn't have the integrity to resign from a Christian organization. Why? Because a guy in a purple shirt spouting heresies sells more books than a guy off the streets spouting heresies.

The essay is titled falsely. Instead of "Losing faith in old traditions", it should be "Losing faith in organizations that lose their traditions." Those denominations that accede to cultural norms rather than scripture are the fastest declining. The two most liberal denominations are vying for the "top" spot in membership decline. Last year, the Episcopalians were the fastest declining, this year it is the UCC. Funny how the most "inclusive" (read we don't take any stands) are the ones that no one wants to join.

Spong proposes an impotent god that doesn't even have the strength to reveal himself to his creation, let alone provide redemption and salvation. Spong's god cannot intervene in humanity. Certainly, Spong's god cannot become incarnate. Spong's god - or as he says "whatever god is" - is a cold, distant irrelevancy.

It is hardly surprising that Spong's heresies resulted in devastation in his former diocese of Newark.

Themoderate wrote"

"John Shelby was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever, a fundamentalist. Fundamentalism without end. Amen."

John Shelby??? You are on a first-name basis with the bishop? If you are, I am doubly troubled by your rant. John Shelby Spong is not a fundamentalist; John Shelby Spong has never been a fundamentalist. The fact that you would make such an absurd statement shows that you know nothing about John Shelby Spong, and even less about fundamentalism. Your use of the English language is sufficiently developed to suggest that you are intelligent, in which case I suggest that you take the trouble to learn about this radical bishop, and real fundamentalism.

Distance88 wrote:

"To me, 'God' refers to some force/entity that is inherently on a different plane than humanity. I feel that assigning anthropomorphic characteristics and claiming ownership of 'God's will' is a more dubious line of reasoning.

"There is nothing illogical in claiming ignorance about something we don't know about--and yet still acknowledging it's presence. Just because we use scientific terms to describe and categorize abstract concepts out of convenience, doesn't mean we have obtained some inner truth as to why these forces (i.e. gravity, time, matter, 'God') exist.

"BTW I was raised Catholic. I no longer believe in religion, still believe in 'God'."

Although I was raised an Episcopalian, I find myself in complete agreement with your excellent comments, and for largely the same reasons. Well said.

The core beliefs of Christianity haven't changed, what has changed over the centuries has been changes in the sort of control and power church hierarchy has been able to wield... unfortunately, what we are seeing, in the Episcopal church, for example is an attempt to exert the type of control churches wielded in the dark ages. Corrupt clerics, from the elites who joined the church, because that was the only option for them to exercise power, as they weren't firstborn or independently wealthy. Many of them were hypocrites, who ignored Christ's teachings, and sought to subvert it for their own whims. What Episcopalians have been seeing are church canon and rules being twisted and violated, by, those who seem to have joined the clergy to destroy the church from within. The wolves in sheep's clothing that Christ warned us about. Who want to throw Christ and his teachings out of Christianity, and excuse sinful behavior. We see them encouraging the sexualization of children, caring more about money, property and power, than in ministry, and helping the poor and suffering. We see them corrupted by a desire to impose their will, spread sin and abuse with a colonialistic mindset on those suffering in Africa. Threatening to withhold aid money, unless the faithful and the clergy in those African countries agree to abandon Christ's teachings, and be little more than victims for the sex tourism trade.

Rev. Spong, has his own sordid history of abuse of power and indifference. He should be ashamed of himself, instead of pridefully attacking those who hold fast to the Lord.

This was good but I disargee in that the gospel is what people need but it's just a idea of what God wants for us not all the rules that we should live by.

Spong is just a atheist that clothes himself in Priesthood... whatever that means to him.

I have more respect for Colin or other atheists as at least their illogical opinions are out there above board.

The truth is this- Jesus came, and revealed the compassionate side of the God know as Yehweh to all of us. He has always existed and is waiting for each of us to discover him.

Spong is incorrect- God revealed himself through the scriptures and has released part of Himself to help us know him, really KNOW him by looking inside the scriptures to see his love for all mankind.

Many don't want to see it , due their love of self and their own intellect. What did Jesus say? " Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself"

The more you lose your self, the more you can love God.

Of course we can get to know Him, if we will let Him .

although to a philosopher the words "what ever God is" he is above reason, might be ok for a deist, they have nothing to do with being a Christian. Reason for example, is a guide along an unknow path but created because it is mirrored in God's creation: that is why we can discover things about the created world, like Newton and the speed of falling objects, and speculate on things still to be known like quantum physics. To say we dont know God it to say Jesus is not God, thus un christian.
For monotheists not christian, Muslims would say God is above reason,but has defined goals [for example God telling mohammed that it is not his will that all be Muslim, -and for the first 100 years conversion was frowned upon] and Jews would say God uses reason, as in the ten commandements, to communicate his covenant.
To pretend you are Christian, and not know God, throught the example of jesus, is to not be christian.

On God vs. Idolatry:

Awhile ago, on this blog, R. Waskow wrote of God's announcement of his existence to Moses. "I am what I will become." This is erroneously translated in the "Old Testament" as "I am what I am." The tense is future: "I am what I will become."

I am not a believer. However, I do recognize the ethical potential in the various religions. To recognize and cherish potentiality should be the primary purpose of every one of them.

Placing the religious institution above God is the risk for believers. Ironically, the institutions that do so have a word for this practice: idolatry.

"It is not the same thing to lose faith as it is to lose confidence in the traditional forms of faith."

Institutions, if they ossify, always risk perishing, and that is generally, though not always, for the good. To take a negative example, in mosq's before prayers, imams typically rant against Christians and Jews, often in violent terms. This is an adaptation, but one that is to the current political climate, of which Islam, the religion, is a part.

So, too, are the other institutionalized religions. There are more constructive means of "adapting," but they require the separation of religion from politics, which would be a historic first in the case of some religious systems.

See Mordecai Kaplan on religion in time, on constructive change withing institutionalized religion.

ByGrace:

"If that's not a dogmatic, religious claim about ultimate truth, I don't know what is."

Well said. John Shelby is a fundamentalist by training and never really got over it. Most everything he says is steeped his current view of Absolute Truth. This is the one constant throughout all of his writings.

Pagan Place,

Old friend, on this one I must go with By Grace's instincts over yours. John Shelby was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever, a fundamentalist. Fundamentalism without end. Amen.

Though he does mutate on particular issues, from his fundamentalist philosophical roots he never deviates.

Reverend Spong is so correct.... religion is an expression of what we inherently surmise about our relationship to God and God's creations. It is not God, although many people otherwise have made religion into an idol - to be worshiped, glorified and attribute absolutism to it. Rather, I believe, many of us, like Reverend Spong, have not dismissed God from our lives at all, only understood that the expression of calling on God, or finding God within ourselves, others, creation, lies really on us alone. As Jesus Himself said, "the Kingdom of God lies within you." We all have the power to elicit God's love and grace within ourselves at any given moment in time, but because religion has become power structures, and because human beings tend to want unambiguous answers to life's complexities, they turn to religion for answers. I agree with Reverend Spong that religions must change....or die. Many of the superstitions of the past cannot hold any long in the light of science and discovery, but our need for God never dies. Thank you Reverend Spong, for being an enlightened and intelligent voice for those of us seeking God both within and outside of church.

Dear PAGANPLACE and similar Multi God's & Multi Goddes's Worshiper.

By what "Scripture" do you PAGAN's have between yourselves to compare your religions with say a Jewish person using their Book or a Christian using their book, or a Moslim using their book or a Hindu using their book or a Buddhist using their books in order to have standing netween the 5 Great Faiths on Earth!

Do PAGANS have a Holy-Book to religiously compare their polytheo beliefs or philosophy's that is in writing by a Pagan prophet or Saint, Angels etc?

Please tell me what holy Book you go by if any. And Do you have Chapters or Places of organised-Worship.

For the Record: You said,

"Bishop Spong writes, "The religious claim that any human religion possesses the ultimate truth of God is not only false but will inevitably die...

"If that's not a dogmatic, religious claim about ultimate truth, I don't know what is.""

Clearly you don't, I guess, then."

&
Thank You.

Err, 'ByGrace?'

""Bishop Spong writes, "The religious claim that any human religion possesses the ultimate truth of God is not only false but will inevitably die.""

"If that's not a dogmatic, religious claim about ultimate truth, I don't know what is."

Clearly you don't, I guess, then.

Bishop Spong writes, "The religious claim that any human religion possesses the ultimate truth of God is not only false but will inevitably die."

If that's not a dogmatic, religious claim about ultimate truth, I don't know what is.

(Sorry this is long: I did spend some time on it, though, so here is:)

It's a good entry, though, Bishop: Still, let me pick at an intellectual assertion, here:

"We have passed through many religious stages from animism, to fertility cults, to tribal deities, to great families of faith like Judeo-Christian, Islam and the Hindu-Buddhist tradition. We are now going through another stage in human development."

There's a myth (or metamyth) of 'progress' in seeing things this way. Usually either people believing their own system *is* the pinnacle of this development, or that shedding 'belief' (the belief in belief is actually kind of a more recent innovation more-associated with book-theism, and not really present in all modern cultures in the same way)

I think what we can look forward to, as book-superstition fades away, is really a *synthesis* of all that we've always been and has always come before, something we may only really recognize in retrospect.

Animism, for instance, isn't an old, obsolete 'system that claimed ultimate truth of belief,' ...Just was, just is.

It's foundational to who and what we are. All of us. Scorned and buried, too often, but foundational. It's about what Christians feel when they see 'God' in the crashing waves, ....all that wonderful old Irish nature poetry... And before.

This is the Pagan feast of Ostara, very much about feeling the Earth around us awakening, and being part of that awakening. Some can only imagine this being about worshipping trees as they worship some words.

That's probably why these systems of *theirs* fade. (Or change, really, if you don't fixate on life and death in a linear fashion, you really just don't see things that way. Change or be changed, we say.)

I think we might just be able to look forward to an interesting *synthesis* of all that's come before. Some cling to that which does not, cannot endure, ...external trappings they think will save their own soul from an ending-world that they postulate to make themselves feel in need of 'saving....'

That's about fearing death, posing as representing something eternal, even trying to rewrite the past to *make* these trappings seem eternal.

I think we've learned a lot in the recent dozen or so centuries, and what we take from it doesn't have to be the ugly and benighted stuff.

"The problem with religion is that each system claims it has captured ultimate truth in its own propositional creeds and organizational structures, so that when those things fade or die great anxiety is loosed. "

It's a problem with certain *forms* of religion, not to say that other forms haven't and don't had their own problems to face.

I actually observed pretty well that Christianity tends to breed a certain form of lazy thinking: it's in your story, even, that all problems in Christianity or monotheism are the same problems, usually portrayed, often falsely, as 'worse' or the same, in other religions, or 'Religion' in general.

Carries over to atheists, too, they'll question the idea of "God" as portrayed by Christians, ...never question what they said to assume about others.

Actually, there's a strength in diversity among humans. We have *different* problems. This means we can help each other.

If we *don't* assume 'All Religion wants it's own way and no other.' Then we can get somewhere. That's actually 'your' problem, really. Not one I envy, but it's a place, where, hopefully, others can help. If you want to do good in the world, I have it from some good guidance, play to the strengths, there, don't spend your life trying to cover your weaknesses.

(continued)

Roveian Christianism has an axiom, 'Attack others where you're weak,' (example: call social programs a 'transfer of wealth' before people find out where the *real* transfer of wealth has been going on, ...I did warn about that, right?)

Obviously I have several bones to pick with Christianity in politics and society in America.

What I see here is pretty simple, here.
People demanded loyalty to institutions, as though to do otherwise was 'Against God,' and made all manner of threats and promises to that end.

Confused certain ideologies, most stridently, with 'faith,' and said all others risked 'damnation.'

Then, of course, it didn't exactly work out, did it?

Doesn't even mean people don't believe in something 'bigger than themselves,' ...It just means certain people, institutions, and agendas, are rightfully *suspect.* Some want to take more xenophobia, sexism, racism, jingoism, and homophobia out of the same bottle, of course, but many more simply, duck heads or vote with their feet.

(continued)

Appropriately-enough, as you don't have to look too far back on this very forum to see GOP-agendaed folks claiming that *numbers* entitle their religion to impose its way on all others in a free country.

Sure, people may still believe there's something bigger than they, .....they've just been led up the garden path by those who wanted to claim the 'Ultimate and Only God' was that *small and stupid.*

Christianity's brought us some good things: while many were obsessing about rules and sexual and reproductive and racial hangups I find bizarre, there was still some quality time with the notion of 'transcendence' among many. (And, I'm not sure if it's a net win after subjugating Europe in the first place, but I suppose European history not ending with some Huns looking at the Bay of Biscay, scratching their heads, and saying, 'Whattya mean, *grow food?*' has its upsides. :)

Probably the biggest problem is that religious conservatives have spent a lot of time recently calling responsible social policies a 'Nanny State' while leaving us mostly sucking at the teats of profiteers with fewer and fewer skills, abilities, and infrastructure, to *actually do for ourselves.*

It was easy for them to say, 'Ha, my macho duallie I don't pull anything with most days will hasten Jesus' return! Take that, libruls!'

Told you it wouldn't be that tidy, didn't I?

You guys have some ability with 'rules,' ...you just tend to think the physical world gives a crap about them.

It's part of why I, personally, have been so angry, here, of late. If you think the only thing that matters in the world are the rulings of some divine Judge based on some written words, is it any wonder that those who've claimed to represent 'The One True Religion(s)' have been behaving this way?

By what they can 'get away with' while directing the people's scorn toward, what, sexual tabooes?

You have friends, though. We are still all in this together. 'Stone Soup' time.

Bring what you got. We still have a lot more to work with than I think most people appreciate.

Maybe some 'forgive us our debtors,' (Remember that, ... that prayer didn't used to be about private property boundaries, speaking of what's 'ancient.')

Course, now that it's the very *rich* that are the 'debtors' in some senses, can't vouch for how that'll go. But you know all about that, right?)

Posted by: garethharris

"Thanks for writing, Bishop. As a priest like you I have had battles with religion too, finally moving on beyond churches and gods. But I have come to regard this not as lost time, but time well spent on my journey, with people like me where I learned and grew immensely.

As I left the tooth fairy, santa claus, easter bunny, boogeyman and skydaddy behind, I began to see myself, like some character in Battlestar Galactica, caught in life in the reality of the middle, not the clarity of extremes at either end. I began to see my own moral compromises, take hits and mistakes. I became less critical. In the process, life became more and more real - also more and more precious.

Standing here on this tiny ball, our island home [I love that phrase.], hurtling through time and space, I am just saying, let's put things in perspective - that all these arguments about religions and gods don't matter. We need to let them go and set our priorities in the reality of our very short lives here.

My conclusion about what does matter:
All we have is each other. The only time we have is now. Let us appreciate - each breath we take, each day we wake, each person that crosses our path. Life has the meaning that WE give it - no more - no less. And the amount we will risk for each other even includes our own lives.

I wish you well."
****************************************
Greatest Comment in the pile! Thanks!

(I still hesitate to give up the "Spirit" of Santa)

I'm almost alarmed by the high level of discourse here (and the lack of name calling). This is the WaPo comment section, right?

Continuing on the whole 'God existing outside the walls of human intelligence' theme, I don't buy into the premise that this is a logical fallacy. It seems to depend on how individuals define the word 'god'.

To me, 'God' refers to some force/entity that is inherently on a different plane than humanity. I feel that assigning anthropomorphic characteristics and claiming ownership of 'God's will' is a more dubious line of reasoning.

There is nothing illogical in claiming ignorance about something we don't know about--and yet still acknowledging it's presence. Just because we use scientific terms to describe and categorize abstract concepts out of convenience, doesn't mean we have obtained some inner truth as to why these forces (i.e. gravity, time, matter, 'God') exist.

BTW I was raised Catholic. I no longer believe in religion, still believe in 'God'.

Spidermean:

"When the ancient world thought that the earth was flat, ONE BOOK said that the earth is floating on a vaccuum (nothing). How's that for a "human creation"?.

"Beware guys coz your treading on dangerous ground."

Actually, being stridently overbearing and *wrong* is a big reason people don't want to be associated with you, Spidey.

It's actually that Bible of yours that set us back centuries when the circumference of the Earth had previously been measured pretty accurately with a stick and a well.

Furthermore, learn about your own religion instead of standing around demanding everyone obey your interpretation of it. People didn't read that passage and base their cosmology on it, as is plain to see from the 'Flat Earth' and geocentric universe positions claimed as ancient throughout time.

You're also leaving out, India, for instance.

Spong wrote "I do not think so, but it does mean that our current faith systems, like all human creations, will ultimately die. "

There are pearls and there are fake pearls. What you've got was a fake pearl that is why you make lousy conclusions.

There are many fake pearls so keep on searching.

"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and HANGETH the earth upon NOTHING." (Job 26:7)

When the ancient world thought that the earth was flat, ONE BOOK said that the earth is floating on a vaccuum (nothing). How's that for a "human creation"?.

Beware guys coz your treading on dangerous ground.

Thanks for writing, Bishop. As a priest like you I have had battles with religion too, finally moving on beyond churches and gods. But I have come to regard this not as lost time, but time well spent on my journey, with people like me where I learned and grew immensely.

As I left the tooth fairy, santa claus, easter bunny, boogeyman and skydaddy behind, I began to see myself, like some character in Battlestar Galactica, caught in life in the reality of the middle, not the clarity of extremes at either end. I began to see my own moral compromises, take hits and mistakes. I became less critical. In the process, life became more and more real - also more and more precious.

Standing here on this tiny ball, our island home [I love that phrase.], hurtling through time and space, I am just saying, let's put things in perspective - that all these arguments about religions and gods don't matter. We need to let them go and set our priorities in the reality of our very short lives here.

My conclusion about what does matter:
All we have is each other. The only time we have is now. Let us appreciate - each breath we take, each day we wake, each person that crosses our path. Life has the meaning that WE give it - no more - no less. And the amount we will risk for each other even includes our own lives.

I wish you well.

I've journeyed from mainline Protestantism to Catholicism to Atheism to Agnosticism. If there is a god, then I agree it is unknowable in any meaningful sense.

This entity may be the ultimate cause for creation, but it is either unaware of human existence or doesn't care.

In an Average Life-time, a Human (see that word, not G-D) replaces their skins by several times, in a life-time, And so, Losing or shedding someone else's (man made) religion(s) is not the same as losing someone's own Personal, but innate Confidence, through HOPE.

Someone folks use the color "Yellow" to Symbolize HOPE. Or is it "Green"?

We are all Snails that drag, not cross's or Stars of Davids.., but their own shells, that cometh from the same SOURCE!

HOPE is #1 & #1 is YOU. "IT" takes care of the rest.

What was said here just affirms my beliefe that all religion is a social habbit, and that there is no true faith that is fully true.

Thank you Bishop Spong for your eloquent and concise response. I am constantly reassured and enlightened by your work.

God is a cultural phenomena. Many cultures over many years, many gods. God evolves as all things do. Those who claim he is unchangeable have no knowledge of religious history. Most if not all religions have used god for cruel purposes at one time or another. Since this is undeniable, it follows that we are manipulating god, which certainly eliminates any gods supremacy of man.

Many of today's major religions are intolerant, not to be unexpected. If they were tolerant they would loose their absoluteness, which they must cling to to survive.

If there is the god we hear so much about, omnipotent, omnipresent, loving and all powerful, he is guilty of infinite sins of omission. To see the level of evil and suffering that he could prevent and do nothing, is sin itself.

Nothing exists that was not created by god?
Why and endless list of gruel disease, children dying in child birth, natural disasters and so much more, none of which are the works of man?

For me, if there is any force, it is the force of an evolving universe of which we are a part. Unlike a tree we are cogent, but like a tree we come into existence and then like all trees we cease to exist. The fear of nothingness is palpable, it can be a creating force of it's own.

Observe nature, understand your part in it, marvel at it, and as the human part of it, share your humanity with all others as though we were one, for we are.

Colinnicholas and Carstonio, kind and sincere thanks for your approval of my comment... But for the sake of full disclosure, I should say I'm actually a Christian since college following a personal search for spiritual truth (should it exist). So obviously, I personally do believe in God for a variety of reasons. These include the empirical (order of universe and unlikelihood of its eternal self-existence, cohesiveness and comprehensiveness of Scripture, unlikelihood of fulfillment of Biblical prophecy by coincidence, etc) as well as the experiential (tangible, transcendent peace/hope/joy, spiritual growth and healing, answered prayers, etc).

So I'd agree (and the Bible affirms) that there is great mystery to God, and we created beings can only begin to "embrace" the infinite depths of His wisdom, power, and glory. But I also contend that the testaments of creation, our internal moral and spiritual sense, and the Bible itself are God's intended revelation of Himself to us. Cumulatively, they give enough truth and light for us to know Him personally through Christ - both here and now, and eternally.

Peace, Dan (danroth777"at"yahoo.com)

Spong wrote "We will make this transition. We have always done it before."

And they all were doomed like what will happen to a big portion of America in the near future. Doomsday is coming and nobody can't stop it. It's already written in the prophecies of the Holy Book.

" And many false prophets (like Spong)shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the END come." (Matthew 24:11-14)

To Danroth777;

You hit the nail on the head.

If, as the Bishop says - God is beyond the human mind to embrace - how come he embraces him anyway. If God is beyond our knowing, why pretend he exists? We cannot know of God - is what the Bishop is saying.

Well atheists and agnostics gave been saying this forever; even back in the days when they could be tortured to death for saying it. But now a Bishop can say it and still be a Bishop.

Cool.

There is a whole lot of wisdom and beauty in Mr. Spong's essay. In human history, it seems that gods come and go, but the desire for some being beyond (defined precisely by Mr. Spong as "beyond the human mind to embrace") seems to be part of our nature. That being MUST be beyond our embrace. It must be made of pure desire and maybe take the place of all our unfulfilled desires.

Mr. Spong is engaging in real theology, the sort that puts the St. Anselms and Aquinas's to shame. And for that I salute him.

"If we can't know anything about God, then we can't even know that fact."

Excellent point. I would add that we couldn't even know how many gods there. If Sprong is interested in neutrality among faith systems, I would advise him to avoid the sectarian name "God" as capitalized and instead find a more neutral term.

It's unclear to me how people arrived at the idea of gods in the first place, although I have a few ideas. I don't know how a believer would explain the concept to someone from Mars.

"Whatever God is, God is beyond the human mind to embrace."

-----------------------------

Not true. All gods are creations of the human imagination. Our minds created every single one of them all the way from Athena down to Zeus.

In all likelyhood, none of them exist beyond the minds of the humans that believe in them. At least none have been proven to exist beyond our minds so far.

All gods are created by and are therefore embraced by a human mind.

"The problem is that organized religions are increasingly ignoring this sentiment and claiming God's will as their own."

------------------------------

Yeah... that's pretty much what most religions do anyway, organized or not. According to their own doctrine the others are false. It's hard to get around that.

Logical fallacy: "Whatever God is, God is beyond the human mind to embrace."

In claiming this, Spong is asserting that his human mind has somehow ascertained that God (a) exists, and (b) is certainly beyond human mind's ability to know or attain to. How did his own mind then come to embrace that truth? What is his intellectual and philosopical foundation besides his own certainty about the uncertainty of God?

It doesn't take a PhD philosopher to know he can't play both sides of that field. If we can't know anything about God, then we can't even know that fact. Equally plausible, then, are religious assertions that are at least partly based on the empirical and experiential. Though I respect his right to air his views, I pray others see through his spurious, shallow reasoning.

A wonderful post Bishop and it makes a lot of sense.
But...if "God is beyond the human mind to embrace" as you say,
then how come so many millions embrace Him anyway?
And why pray if God is beyond the 'human mind'?
If He is so beyond the human mind - maybe it makes
more sense to conclude that He doesn't actually exist,
except in the human mind.

God is certainly beyond my mind's ability to embrace,
or even to believe in. But I call myself an atheist
because it makes no sense to believe in a God who is so out of reach; who is
merely a proposition.

So unless you are using the word "God" as a metaphor
for the great mystery of everything, (like Einstein used the word)
I don't understand what you mean by God.

This is lovely. I agree with Distance88 that your statement about god transcending our human attempts at understanding is one of the most simple and powerful I have seen in a long time.

But then again, I am a unitarian. I started as a Christian then realized that my Christian faith was just the window through which I viewed the divine.

Can one expect that people more fully steeped in Christianity or another dogma can accept that it is impefect and contingent, and not just around the margins?

Bishop Spong, loved your book "Why Christianity Must Change or Die". I saw you debate Rabbi Jack Spiro while I was a philosophy student at VCU.

"Whatever God is, God is beyond the human mind to embrace. This means that God is beyond the scriptures, the creeds, doctrines, dogmas and even beyond the boundaries of any faith system."
__________________________________________

This may be the single best statement I've ever seen in the "On Faith" section of the Post.

The problem is that organized religions are increasingly ignoring this sentiment and claiming God's will as their own.