Protestant or Catholic

[lilithu]

It's explained in his book.

So he's never claimed to be either a pantheist or a panentheist, but he explains in his book how his conceiving of "God" as akin to the ground of being ala Tillich makes him more pantheist than panentheist?

I'm just curious because I consider myself a panentheist, not a pantheist, and I love Tillich's "ground of being."

 

[doppelganger]

So he's never claimed to be either a pantheist or a panentheist, but he explains in his book how his conceiving of "God" as akin to the ground of being ala Tillich makes him more pantheist than panentheist?

I'm just curious because I consider myself a panentheist, not a pantheist, and I love Tillich's "ground of being."

Spong is building on Tillich into something his own. Read the book and decide for yourself what you think his views are on "theism." I've quoted excerpts on my blog clearly indicating a non-theistic slant in my opinion. If you disagree that's certainly your prerogative, but please do yourself the favor of reading his book before you make up your mind.

 

[lilithu]

Spong is building on Tillich into something his own. Read the book and decide for yourself what you think his views are on "theism." I've quoted excerpts on my blog clearly indicating a non-theistic slant in my opinion. If you disagree that's certainly your prerogative, but please do yourself the favor of reading his book before you make up your mind.

I wasn't arguing with you that Spong is a theist. My feeling is that's a semantic argument anyway. I was asking what is it about "ground of being" that is more pantheist than panentheist.

But if you don't want to discuss it that's fine.

 

[doppelganger]

I wasn't arguing with you that Spong is a theist. My feeling is that's a semantic argument anyway. I was asking what is it about "ground of being" that is more pantheist than panentheist.

But if you don't want to discuss it that's fine.

There's a conjunction in the sentence I wrote about Spong and Tillich. Check out the part before "and like Tillich." By itself, Tillich's "ground of being" is neither. In the hands of someone who thinks it's more accurate to talk about a "God-experience" as an alternative to "theism" it is part of a picture of a non-theistic Christianity.

 

[spiritually inclined]

I have not read his books. I need to do that. But some articles I've read by Spong indicate that he believes in an afterlife, which is to me, supernatural.

James

 

[lilithu]

I have not read his books. I need to do that. But some articles I've read by Spong indicate that he believes in an afterlife, which is to me, supernatural.

James

Would you be able to cite some examples? I often talk about "heaven" and/or "salvation," but I don't mean an afterlife.

Also, you don't have to agree with everything he says for his thoughts to be of value to you.

 

[doppelganger]

I need to do that. But some articles I've read by Spong indicate that he believes in an afterlife, which is to me, supernatural.

If he does, it's not anything of a supernatural sort. More a merging back into the ground of being, maybe.

Here are Spong's 12 Theses which are stated in Christianity Must Change . . . and developed by him through A New Christianity:

A Call for a New Reformation


1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce the divine will. So, most theological God-talk today is meaningless unless we find a new way to speak of God.


2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So, the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.


3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-*Darwinian nonsense.


4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes the divinity of Christ, as traditionally understood, impossible.


5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.


6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God that must be dismissed.


7. Resurrection is an action of God, who raised Jesus into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history..


8. The story of the ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.


9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in Scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.


10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.


11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior-control mentality of reward and punishment. The church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.


12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for cither rejection or discrimination.


Author's Note: These theses posted for debate are inevitably stated in a negative manner. That is deliberate. Before one can hear what Christianity is one must create room for that bearing by clearing out the misconceptions of what Christianity is not. Why Christianity Must Change or Die is a manifesto calling the church to a new reformation. In that book I begin to sketch out a view of God beyond theism, an understanding of' the Christ as a God presence and a vision of the shape of both the church and its Liturgy for the future.

 

[JayHawes]

I am not surprised of the things listed above. The bible said that the preaching of the Gospel would seem as foolishness to those in darkness.... The list is the result of the teachings of the World.

 

[lilithu]

The list is the result of the teachings of the World.

Yup. :yes: And God created the world, and pronounced it GOOD. :angel2:

 

[sojourner]

I am not surprised of the things listed above. The bible said that the preaching of the Gospel would seem as foolishness to those in darkness.... The list is the result of the teachings of the World.

On the contrary. I think the man is brilliant.

 

[spiritually inclined]

He is very interesting, and what little I have read of him is the only thing that opens me up to considering a Christian path again, at least, a neo-Christian path. However, what will happen to the Bible in this new Christianity? It will certainly not retain its status of infallability (which I have determined through my study is absolutely ridiculous.) Can other religious and even secular literature possibly be introduced and read in a metaphorical, inspirational way, like parts of the Bible? One of my obstacles to considering a neo-Christian path is the Bible because I find much of it, especially the Old Testament, horrific, barbaric, outdated, and irrelevant, though there are some parts of it that could be retained by a modern, sensible person.

Also, can the new Christianity be inclusive enough to be informed by other religious traditions as well as by science?

James

 

[doppelganger]

Also, can the new Christianity be inclusive enough to be informed by other religious traditions as well as by science?

James

It has for me. I find a great deal of profound wisdom in the Bible. But I also find it the Tao te Ching, Buddhist writings, the Baghavad Gita, the great philosophers and scientists, especially Einstein and the geniuses of quantum mechanics, great novels, poetry and literature.

My experiences and views on this subject of how a new Christianity can have meaning in a new world are summarized pretty fairly here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50940

 

[lilithu]

However, what will happen to the Bible in this new Christianity? It will certainly not retain its status of infallability (which I have determined through my study is absolutely ridiculous.) Can other religious and even secular literature possibly be introduced and read in a metaphorical, inspirational way, like parts of the Bible? One of my obstacles to considering a neo-Christian path is the Bible because I find much of it, especially the Old Testament, horrific, barbaric, outdated, and irrelevant, though there are some parts of it that could be retained by a modern, sensible person.

What do you mean by "infallible"?

Interestingly, the part of the Christian bible that you call the Old Testament IS the Jewish bible, the Tanakh. And in Judaism there is a long, rich tradition of reinterpreting scripture in light of current experience.

Personally, I love many of the stories in the "Old Testament."
Adam and Eve
Abraham and Isaac
Jacob wrestling with God
Moses and the Exodus
Job
Jonah...

and the Psalms.... love poems to God.

 

[spiritually inclined]

Infallible...that means every word is true...there are no historical or scientific errors. There are no contradictions. Every rule should be followed, and nothing in the Bible should ever be changed or re-interpreted....

 

[lilithu]

Infallible...that means every word is true...there are no historical or scientific errors. There are no contradictions. Every rule should be followed, and nothing in the Bible should ever be changed or re-interpreted....

True and factually correct are not always the same. At any rate, in Judaism the Tanakh is reinterpreted. In fact, some would argue that the Christian interpretation of the OT is a reinterpretation, because it is viewed differently in Christianity than in Judaism. Re-interpreting, challenging, exploring, probing, is all in keeping with the tradition from whence Christianity came. Many liberal Christians are returning to that. And some liberal Christians never left it.

 

[spiritually inclined]

Do you think the early Christians took an approach that would be different from fundamentalists today?

James

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Do you think the early Christians took an approach that would be different from fundamentalists today?

James

very much so
They did not have the Bible in a collated form
so could not have seen it as the whole word of God.
Theirs was a verbal tradition passed down through their teachers.
Few would even have had the concept of a universal church.

They learnt about the prophets , the life and teachings of Jesus his death and resurrection the forgiveness of sins and the promise of eternal life.

Had you told them every thing they needed to know was in a book,
and all they had to do was believe in it and Jesus to be saved,
they would have laughed at you.
They may have been mostly uneducated peoples but they were not simple.

 

[doppelganger]

Do you think the early Christians took an approach that would be different from fundamentalists today?

James

There were all kinds of approaches among "early" Christians, but something essentially like modern Christian fundamentalism was certainly in practice as early as Justin Martyr, and probably as early as Ignatius and Polycarp, while, just like today, there were also more liberal Christians who understood the Gospel more for its metaphorical connotations and were less concerned about the Law.

Indeed, the genuine Pauline epistles (e.g. Galatians) suggest early divisions had developed as early as the middle of the first century between his free-wheeling faith/grace model and the "Jewish" Christians in the Jerusalem Church, who were still dedicated to continuing in obedience to the Jewish law.

 

[spiritually inclined]

Doppelganger, I'm assuming that some of these early Christian communities also had access to books not in the Bible today? Do you read any of these extrabiblical gospels about Jesus, etc. and find meaning in them?

James

 

[doppelganger]

Doppelganger, I'm assuming that some of these early Christian communities also had access to books not in the Bible today? Do you read any of these extrabiblical gospels about Jesus, etc. and find meaning in them?

That appears to be the case. Even before finding secreted and buried copies of them, we knew about other gospels from surviving references to them, including The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, a gospel used as part of the Marcionite canon that Marcion claimed was written by Paul himself (a copy of which does not appear to have been found). There were also many books that even the mainstream "proto-orthodox" accepted, which no longer are considered "canonical" (like the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Epistle of Barnabas). They may have had different versions of books we have in an edited form today as well. For example, it's been theorized that our "Gospel According to John" is an edited version of a text written by Cerinthus, who was considered a heretic by the proto-orthodox and occasionally listed as a "Gnostic" by modern scholars.