Bishop Spongs 12 Points of Reformation of Christianity

[Rick O'Shez]

He is probably my favorite author. I wish Christianity would evolve with new knowledge. I might be persuaded back if that happened.

In the UK there a few non-theist Quakers, though as I mentioned before they look like humanists who can't quite let go of a Christian past. Intriguing comment about "new knowledge", what kind of thing do you have in mind?

 

[Omega Green]

(*There are some replies that i'm yet to attend to - apologies)

Thirza I agree with you. But I'm not sure of my standing on the afterlife. For the reason Spong gives for rejecting hell, I suppose is good enough to suspend belief in heaven also. He devoted a book to discussing the afterlife but I haven't read it yet. The Christians need someone like Spong to reinforce common sense logic and to show that ones religious life need not be so separate from ones real world life.

 

[Omega Green]

It can refer to such a god, but it can also refer to gods in general:


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/theism

You're going by definition #1, I'm going by definition #2. Both are valid.

And so it becomes a question of when could it be appropriate to use the word "God". If i'm in bed with a woman and she exclaims "oh my God" - I still think that's a good thing. You study atheism and you perhaps share in the Nietzschean declaration "God is dead" - and so then you apply this to the concept of the theistic God. Which is what I do. I do not believe in the theistic God. But since then i've said to myself; i've remembered that my religious experience certainly meant something to me back when I was a teen, so even though I don't think God exists as a being external to the human mind, I still recognize that god experiences can be quite profound; and so I basically use the word "God' to declare that aspects of human experience can be quite profound.

It's also important to note that atheism is a response to definition #2, not definition #1.

Both your definitions #1 and #2 are describing a "belief in..." - that's not what i'm talking about. I perceive God as "being itself", not a-being who one might choose to believe in. I don't believe in God; the theistic concepts of God are incoherent and I reject them; God is more something that one does, or a how one lives, then an organization in which you invest belief.

How do you tell the difference between "of nature" and "not of nature"?

I don't think proponents of the supernatural even can do this. They all result to using figurative metaphors anyway ("Jesus take the wheel") - I don't do that. In a world where our very thoughts are natural reactions to a natural world, there is no such thing, technically, as a supernatural anything! The only thing that has been passed off, in effect, as supernatural is the logistics of the concept itself. Which has its stipulations are i've mentioned. But for those who do profess the supernatural, I'd say that they are using negative categories ("not of nature; beyond nature etc); and the problem with negative categories is that they specify nothing in the way of positive attributes - and so the result can be equal to the meaning of "nothing" (not anything). But i'd say the major arch of supernatural thinking is to be found in claims of a certain kind of being, of beings not restricted by the limits imposed upon human beings. While this captures and sometimes conveys the sense of transcendence, it's in reality a poor medium because none of us will ever know what it's like to be free of all these limits.

Personally, the only approach that's ever made sense to me is to use the term "natural" to describe all things that actually exist. This would make the "supernatural" either:

- things that exist (and are therefore natural) that we don't understand, or that behave according to principles we don't understand.

Agreed.

- things that don't exist.

Agreed.

I don't see how "supernatural" can be an actual thing.

Agreed.

There are plenty of polytheistic god-concepts that could be described as "a being existing independently to the human mind". Many pantheistic and panentheistic concepts would also qualify.

BTW: if you're saying that you believe that God exists "as a concept", then I'd say this is an atheistic position, too. Is that what you're getting at?

Yes.

What do you mean by "energy"?

Cognitive energy - whereby one experiences thought and extension. Spinoza spoke of "God" as possessing two attributes, thought and extension. Harmony within ones own subconscious; that sort of thing.

At the very least, heat energy exists in any material object with a temperature above absolute zero... so in that sense, yes. Is that the sense you mean?

Well i've heard the term "spark of life"; so maybe there's room for that. Our creativity, our condition of possibility; that is the sort of thing I think of as God because since church i've found that philosophical argumentation about God is better sustained by the atheists.

Sorry 9/10ths - all my responses are within the quotation box; still getting used to the format here... I'll figure it out.

 

[Omega Green]

"I have something to say to the religionist who feels atheists never say anything positive: You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil--you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself."

-Dan Barker.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And so it becomes a question of when could it be appropriate to use the word "God".

And if you're going to exclude a dictionary that's accepted enough to be in the dictionary, you'd better have a good reason.

You study atheism and you perhaps share in the Nietzschean declaration "God is dead" - and so then you apply this to the concept of the theistic God.

It's frustrating that you would continue to make bad assumptions about my position even after I just explained that your assumption is bad.

I think the idea of "studying atheism" is nonsensical, so I'm fairly certain that I don't do it.

I'm not an atheist in only "the theistic God" (whatever you mean by that); I'm an atheist with regards to all gods: there is nothing that I would consider a god that I believe exists.

Which is what I do. I do not believe in the theistic God.

What do you mean by "the theistic God"? By my understanding of "theistic", you're being redundant - you may as well be saying "I do not believe in God".

... and just to reiterate: this isn't because I have a narrow understanding of "God"; it's because I have a broad understanding of "theistic".

What do you mean by "theistic"? When you say "the theistic God", how is this different from just "God"?

But since then i've said to myself; i've remembered that my religious experience certainly meant something to me back when I was a teen, so even though I don't think God exists as a being external to the human mind, I still recognize that god experiences can be quite profound; and so I basically use the word "God' to declare that aspects of human experience can be quite profound.

If that's how you've defined "God" and you're sincere about what you say, then I'd say this makes you a theist. However, you do recognize that people who acknowledge "profound aspects of human experience" but don't call these things "God" aren't theists (unless they believe in something else they consider a god, of course), right?

Both your definitions #1 and #2 are describing a "belief in..." - that's not what i'm talking about. I perceive God as "being itself", not a-being who one might choose to believe in. I don't believe in God; the theistic concepts of God are incoherent and I reject them; God is more something that one does, or a how one lives, then an organization in which you invest belief.

I thought you just said that you believe God to be "profound aspects of human experience"; do you believe that "being itself" is "profound aspects of human experience"?

(Or maybe are you a polytheist who believes in two gods, both named "God"?)

When you say "I perceive God as 'being itself'", I think it would be fair to re-phrase this as "I believe in God as 'being itself'." Do you agree?

BTW: if you're saying that you believe that God exists "as a concept", then I'd say this is an atheistic position, too. Is that what you're getting at?

Yes.

So you're an atheist? From the rest of your post, I thought you believe in God; no?

So that we don't get into a ridiculous "who's on first?" situation: when I use the terms, "theist" and "atheist", here's what I mean:

- theist: a person who believes in any sort of god
- atheist: a person who does not believe in any sort of god

I think you're using these terms differently from me, so what terms would you use that have these meanings? What would you call someone who doesn't believe in any gods (or "perceive anything as a god", to use your verbage)? What's your umbrella term for god-believers of all types?

 

[Windwalker]

And if you're going to exclude a dictionary that's accepted enough to be in the dictionary, you'd better have a good reason.

I know this is in response to Omega Green but I find myself hearing what he is saying so I'll offer some thoughts of my own. I am hearing what you are saying better now based on the last couple responses, so I'll pick it up from there.

Regarding dictionaries, I think you and a lot of people have a profound misunderstanding of them as sources of authority. It's a constant problem I see where people say the dictionary says something, therefore that's the fact of it, end of story. "The Dictionary said it, I believe it, that's good enough for me", type arguments. In what you said just now it betrays that view of dictionaries, that if you exclude a meaning that's "[good] enough to be in the dictionary you'd better have a good reason". The good reason is this. Those who write dictionaries are not experts in the fields of all the words and their usages they are collecting. That's why.

The authors of dictionaries are usually some kind of committee. Based on the amount of work a dictionary requires they cannot all be experts in all the relevant fields for every word - you would have to have the entire faculty of several universities working on every dictionary for that! Terms often are loosely defined, sometimes in ways that do deviate from how they actually are used in the relevant fields. Dictionaries, like every other sufficiently large work made by humans, contain approximations, errors, flaws and oversights. You should not rely on dictionaries to limit understanding to words. At best, they are a starting point, but to really understand words you have to talk to those within the relevant fields. They are the authorities, not dictionaries.

If you want to truly understand something you must go beyond dictionaries, even outright reject what it says when you go deeply enough. Try opening an encyclopedia if you don't have the time and resources to go to the experts, or to actual primary sources themselves, but even then encyclopedias should not be taken as authoritative on the subjects, even though they generally tend to be better researched. Dictionaries are even less reliable for the reasons I stated. Even though a dictionary may look like a Bible, it's not to be held forth as the The Mighty Word of Webster.

This whole areas of looking for Authorities to tell us "facts" can be a whole topic discussion in itself. What I said here goes a whole lot deeper than what I touched on. I think I'll start that thread at some point here.

I'm not an atheist in only "the theistic God" (whatever you mean by that); I'm an atheist with regards to all gods: there is nothing that I would consider a god that I believe exists.

And I think that's been the point of contention here, as well as agreement. What you "would consider a god". Yes, agree, what you "would consider a god", neither of us would seem to accept either! But what we would consider to be God, you don't "consider a god". And again, using your exact word choices here, neither would we. That's not what we consider God. We would not consider God "a god".

... and just to reiterate: this isn't because I have a narrow understanding of "God"; it's because I have a broad understanding of "theistic".

Now this is something I get! When I do this, take an understanding of a word and make it broad and encompassing, I get accused repeatedly by "Dictionaryists" (new word for the books.. ), to be making up my own meanings, disregarding the meaning of words, and so forth. Welcome to the club, brother!

I get what you are trying to say, and it's not all bad, but it does have some inherent problems. What I would be willing to concede is that if we are going to take "theism" as make it an overall umbrella term, then you have to make what had be traditionally understood as "theism" to be subcategory under the umbrella term "theism" as a whole. Theism, since the invention of the word in the 17th Century (that's right, people do in fact make up words!), did not have the understandings of all the various views of God that we do today in the Modern age. To insist it means that one thing only halts all understanding and growth of knowledge (take that, Dictionaryists everywhere).

So what we need to do is this. The subcategory would be "Traditional Theism", which is the wholly transcendent, wholly external deity in whatever form that takes. Pantheism is another form of theism, but not a theism defined as traditional theism does, not "a god", which was once again your word choice for theism in general in the first quote from you in this reply. (I'm not imagining you saying those words). If we use Theism as a blanket term, and make the distinction that it inherently does not mean "a god", than I'm fine with that.

That said however, I still contend that atheism as it is currently expressed and defined is in relation to specifically "traditional theism", not "broad use theism". The great Atheist Master Dawkins himself recognized that difference when he from his incomparable depth of learning and understanding of world religions quipped that Pantheism was as he called it a "sexed up atheism". Even he recognized they didn't believe in "a god".

What do you mean by "theistic"? When you say "the theistic God", how is this different from just "God"?

Traditional theism, the wholly external, wholly transcendent deity. That makes God "an entity", "a being". Pantheism does not speak of conceive of God in this way, and by extension neither does Panentheism.

If that's how you've defined "God" and you're sincere about what you say, then I'd say this makes you a theist. However, you do recognize that people who acknowledge "profound aspects of human experience" but don't call these things "God" aren't theists (unless they believe in something else they consider a god, of course), right?

That's a good question. Myself, I don't like to use the term theist, or atheist either. I think those terms, or labels, are quite misleading and limiting for both understandings. I personally see them as flip sides of the same coin, not polar opposites as most assume they are.

So what do I call those who do not use the symbol God who have these profound spiritual experiences (by spiritual I mean transcendent in quality and nature, even while understood in naturalistic terms and language)? I consider them humans having a spiritual experience. Their theism or atheism is solely, only a framework of interpretation after the fact. That interpretative framework, which both theism and atheism in fact are, is that "same coin" I keep speaking of. You with me here yet?

There reaches a point where these experiences can be understood either way, through either lens, through either interpretative framework. It's not about the supposed "sources", but about the nature of the experience itself and what it exposes, what it inspires, what it provokes, what it opens us to. It doesn't open us to "beliefs", but rather to a more profound context through which all interpretations are seen and given new depths of meaning. It has nothing to do with the "fact" behind it, as all of that is simply languages to speak about it, be that theism or atheism, be that the supernatural or the natural.

So in short, how I see the theist or the atheist who has these profound experiences? As my brother or sister! That's how!

I may pick up more later, but it's my sincere hope that maybe how I talked about it here may help shed some light and bridge some gaps in our mutual understanding.

 

[Omega Green]

That post is well written Windwalker.

I'll write more tomorrow; but for now i'll just say 9/10th's that you seem to be suggesting that if anyone even uses the word "God" then you would have to consider them theist, irrespective of what the word represents, is that true? Even if it were a mere exclamation about the weather, e.g. "Oh my God it's raining heavily today". You'd forget about the rain and say "Hey, you must be a Theist!"

My apologies if the phrasing of my recollections of reading Nietzsche suggested to you that I was describing your position, I was describing mine; I suppose I was describing myself in the third person. We've never discussed Nietzsche and I have no idea if you've read him before or not. Will write more tomorrow.

 

[Sand Dancer]

In the UK there a few non-theist Quakers, though as I mentioned before they look like humanists who can't quite let go of a Christian past. Intriguing comment about "new knowledge", what kind of thing do you have in mind?

Things like storms not being punishment from god, sicknesses not being from sin, homosexuality not being a choice.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Things like storms not being punishment from god, sicknesses not being from sin, homosexuality not being a choice.

From what I've seen non-theist Christians just look at Christ's basic teachings, and put all the other stuff to one side as not being relevant. But as I said, it ends up looking very much like humanism.

 

[Omega Green]

Pretty much; although knowing the most probable difference between Jesus's teachings and the words put into his mouth by the early church can be tricky; the best books on the subject in my opinion incidentally come from Atheists and Agnostics; Bart Ehrman and Robert Price and Richard Carrier. It's hard to imagine Jesus saying himself "I am the bread of life" - those sort of statements likely come from the early Christians (unless Jesus was anticipating all the associated weirdness of communion).

 

[Windwalker]

As far as modern Christianity looking a lot like humanism, I think another way to understand that is to say that Humanism looks a lot like the basic Christian ethos. And that would in fact be correct. We all, theists and atheists alike in the West, have inherited the basic Christian ethos. It's programmed into us as members of this culture which has been shaped and molded by Christianity historically. In this context, it is entirely correct to say that atheism in the West is very much a type of "Christianity without God". You just strip out the supernatural, and you end up with the basic teachings of Jesus.

Here's a wonderful little article about the Humanism in the teachings of Jesus that the prominent monk Pelagius taught, and how in fact what you have today in Christianity is not the only way they were understood. I think everyone will enjoy this brief article listed under the Atheism area of about.com: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_hist_pelagius.htm

From the article:

Pelagius may not have been a humanist in the modern sense, but it is clear that he placed the welfare and actions of human beings much more to the center of his concerns than did Augustine and other church leaders. We, like Pelagius, must reject any sort of god which would make unfulfillable demands from human beings. We must also reject any idea that humans are inherently and irrevocably corrupt.
​

I think there is a great deal that can be gleaned from understanding this historically in the Christian church.

 

[Omega Green]

"I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

-Albert Einstein.

 

[gnomon]

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.

You never supported this argument throughout the entirety of this thread.

So the very first premise, that theism as a means of defining God, is dead..........is absolutely so base.

Seriously.

Why must there be a new way to speak to God......in this atheistic forum......because YOU have decreed that theism is dead........despite the fact that theism is so varied from one culture to the next.

But YOU. YOU have declared that theism is dead. Never mind the numerous variations of theism among so many different cultures.

Show us your authority or at least some sort of argument because you have done nothing to substantiate any of your statements.

I offer up as evidence of the stupidity of this entire thread is that people are talking about Christianity and Jesus. What of the hundreds of other forms of theism out there. You declared them dead as well in your number one point.........

So now what?

Is this just an imbecilic screed by someone dissatisfied with the culture they grew up in or is this actually an argument pertaining to theism as a whole?

Given the OP that I read it is definitely not the latter.

Now I expect a misbegotten quote of some nonsense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know this is in response to Omega Green but I find myself hearing what he is saying so I'll offer some thoughts of my own. I am hearing what you are saying better now based on the last couple responses, so I'll pick it up from there.

Frankly, I'm done talking with you. You seem so bound and determined to take me as a closed-minded idiot that you're too busy to read what I'm actually saying.

Case in point:

Regarding dictionaries, I think you and a lot of people have a profound misunderstanding of them as sources of authority. It's a constant problem I see where people say the dictionary says something, therefore that's the fact of it, end of story. "The Dictionary said it, I believe it, that's good enough for me", type arguments. In what you said just now it betrays that view of dictionaries, that if you exclude a meaning that's "[good] enough to be in the dictionary you'd better have a good reason". The good reason is this. Those who write dictionaries are not experts in the fields of all the words and their usages they are collecting. That's why.

The authors of dictionaries are usually some kind of committee. Based on the amount of work a dictionary requires they cannot all be experts in all the relevant fields for every word - you would have to have the entire faculty of several universities working on every dictionary for that! Terms often are loosely defined, sometimes in ways that do deviate from how they actually are used in the relevant fields. Dictionaries, like every other sufficiently large work made by humans, contain approximations, errors, flaws and oversights. You should not rely on dictionaries to limit understanding to words. At best, they are a starting point, but to really understand words you have to talk to those within the relevant fields. They are the authorities, not dictionaries.

If you want to truly understand something you must go beyond dictionaries, even outright reject what it says when you go deeply enough. Try opening an encyclopedia if you don't have the time and resources to go to the experts, or to actual primary sources themselves, but even then encyclopedias should not be taken as authoritative on the subjects, even though they generally tend to be better researched. Dictionaries are even less reliable for the reasons I stated. Even though a dictionary may look like a Bible, it's not to be held forth as the The Mighty Word of Webster.

This whole areas of looking for Authorities to tell us "facts" can be a whole topic discussion in itself. What I said here goes a whole lot deeper than what I touched on. I think I'll start that thread at some point here.

When I cited the dictionary, this wasn't to appeal to the authority of the dictionary. All I was ever trying to do was to get you to acknowledge my intended meaning behind the words I was using. I had already explained to you in detail what I meant; you kept on misinterpreting me. Citing the dictionary was just a last-ditch attempt to get you to acknowledge that my usage wasn't some weird thing coming completely out of left field.

You have shown over and over again that you're more than willing to make up an intent behind my posts that bears no resemblance to what I actually wrote or what I actually intended. Until you're willing to spend the meager time and effort to read what I write and give a small measure of thought to what I'm actually saying, discussion with you is going to be useless and frustrating.

Of course, I don't expect that you'll hear what I'm saying now any more than you've heard anything else I've said. Maybe get someone you actually listen to to explain it to you.

 

[Windwalker]

I did acknowledge your points in my last post. I suggest you read it again where I made some concessions to you in what you were trying to say, and trying to find a middle ground for discussion. You may use "theism" as an umbrella term if you wish, but there were conditions for that I suggested which seem entirely reasonable. Please go back and read it again.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I did acknowledge your points in my last post. I suggest you read it again where I made some concessions to you in what you were trying to say, and trying to find a middle ground for discussion. You may use "theism" as an umbrella term if you wish, but there were conditions for that I suggested which seem entirely reasonable. Please go back and read it again.

Nope. I'm done. You're well past the point where you're worth my time.

 

[Windwalker]

Nope. I'm done. You're well past the point where you're worth my time.

Ok then. Thanks for your effort.

 

[Omega Green]

You never supported this argument throughout the entirety of this thread.
So now what?

Is this just an imbecilic screed by someone dissatisfied with the culture they grew up in or is this actually an argument pertaining to theism as a whole?

Given the OP that I read it is definitely not the latter.

Now I expect a misbegotten quote of some nonsense.

Well these are the twelve points for reform of Christianity as proposed by the successful and dignified career of a Episcopal Bishop Christian, they're not mine.
Do you have a case for theism aside from the mention of its popularity? Cats walking under ladders bringing us bad luck? Do you believe that too?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Cats walking under ladders bringing us bad luck?

Gawd, something else to worry about!

<Rick dashes outside to remove ladder and shoo off cats>

 

[Omega Green]

You never supported this argument throughout the entirety of this thread.

So the very first premise, that theism as a means of defining God, is dead..........is absolutely so base.

Now I expect a misbegotten quote of some nonsense.

Well there is a couple of hundred years of these sorts of dialogues. Since the theists weren't able to burn atheists at the stake for this or that heresy; we've learned and grown and we have all sorts of conversations now. But also it doesn't work your way; God is Dead - it's symbolic of the uselessness of certain God-talk; the god of theism - omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent - we can't find him anywhere and it's not for a want of looking or trying. Have you ever been to a hospital to visit children with bone cancer - where was your God for them? Before I finish typing this posts, a number of children under the age of 5 will have died - where was your God for them? Where were you for 9/11? People hurling their own bodies out of windows of collapsing buildings - and where was your God for them? - Now I personally call this God Omnimax - as a generic term for the super-human-powerful God of the "abrahamix" - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I don't believe that this God exists and i've been debating cases for his existence for over 15 years. Do you have one? Remember, the burden of proof is not upon the Atheist, who merely lacks theistic belief. The burden is yours to prove that God doesn't exist. I say, poetically, God is Dead, because I don't believe he ever was; I have not yet found a theist who has made a case for the existence of God as a supernatural being. But if you have one, why not make it here?

"You don't have to turn your head into a 1st century pretzel to be a Christian"
-Bishop Spong.