Posted on 03/25/2002 7:44:16 AM PST by US admirer
Spong warns not to take Bible too literally
Controversial religious figure John Shelby Spong took the pulpit at Dilworth United Methodist Sunday and urged more than 600 worshippers not to believe everything they read in the Bible.
The retired Episcopal bishop, who was born and raised in Dilworth, is best known for questioning Christian tenets such as Jesus' virgin birth and his physical resurrection. Spong's Palm Sunday sermon focused on challenging those who believe the Bible is the literal word of God.
"The book we see as the book of life has for years been used as a weapon of oppression, and it's still being used to justify hatred and oppression," Spong said... (see URL for full article)
Why would the “moral order” suddenly become dis-ordered? I am positively against moral relativism, as I trust you are. If inseminating one’s sister were natural at the time of Adam, why would it become un-natural to behave thus at some future time? Or are natural laws mutable?
And when He comes He'll know who was doing His work and who was in league with the Malignant Enemy. I'm far from perfect but I have nothing to fear there.
Have you any counter-evidence? For instance, what connexion did the authors of the Gospel of Thomas have to the disciples of Jesus?
"May also have been"? You want to stake your soul on a "may also have been"? Who testifies to them? Some of them claim apostolic authorship, but they are unknown until well after the time of the apostles.
And there aren't two authentic gospels, or four, or ten, or eleven, but only one. If what you read coincides with the faith once delivered to the saints, fine. If it diverges from it, it's wrong.
As for my terming their authors "nutcases," Irenaeus calls their works the "raving" of "lunatics". If you'd prefer his terminology, that's fine with me.
Could you just, for a moment, explain what the possible attraction of this stuff could be? What does it have that orthodoxy cannot promise? An eternity of divinized glory sitting on thrones judging the angels, all given to you as a free gift of a loving Daddy who loved you enough to die a gruesome death for you and then give himself to you every day if you like under the form of a little white wafer ... that isn't good enough for you?
If you definition of "un-natural" is "contrary to natural law," I see no evidence that it is "un-natural". However, God is free to reveal additional law which is binding on those who receive it, but not on those who live before it is given.
You ask about the instances of infidelity or incest in the Garden of Eden. I don't pretend to have all the answers. I do feel there are certain solutions available to aleviate some of the concerns.
This earth was inhabited by the evil angels that fell from heaven. I do not know if some of them mingled with humans. I suppose it is possible.
You mention that if it is a sin today for man to marry his sister, then it had to be a sin back then too. I don't belive that is necessarily true. Adam and Eve started out as perfect beings. Their offspring would be nearly perfect. It would take generations for their genes to suffer the affects of sin.
The reason it is a sin for a man and his sister to marry today, is that it would create medical problems for their children. That would not likely have been true for the near decendants of Adam and Eve. In a few generations the marriage of brothers and sisters would give way to marriage between cousins, and then second cousins. After a few hundred years you could be talking about a race of people that could intermingle at the same levels we do today without much trouble at all.
Look, I'm sure you can tear this appart if it suits you. It's the best anyone can do for now. If this is the issue that breaks your faith, then I'd have to say your faith was pretty brittle to begin with.
Or will you proudly proclaim to Christ the King that you served him well and expect the highest reward for your strong efforts?
On the issue of my faith being brittle or not, I would suggest that such judgements be best left to your God.
Name one.
No it certainly would'nt. It is also not Christian to cast pearls in places where I should'nt; my experience on this forum is that most genuine searches for the truth take place via the "private reply" button. However, even though I am still not sure if I am driving my boat at the wrong speed, I will clarify for you.
Their was originally one law. It was violated. God at that point had not set down universal law, only contingent ones. By neccessity in the created order, only brothers and sisters were around at first. This practice started to go out of favor in Abram's time (Sarai was his half sister). By the time the stage was set for the Book of Exodus, it was no longer necessary to marry immediate family members.
Genesis is the story of the origins of the group of people that G-d would choose to make his own, and whom through the Promised One would come.
That seperation of the Israelites into G-d's "Chosen People" did not happen until Exodus. Part of that arrangement included G-d revealing a Law. This Law was not to prevent sin, but to make us as people aware of how short of the mark we are. This is covered in Romans, especially in Chapters 2 and 3.
There, that was'nt so hard was it?
Even today we are admonished to honor those who follow God's word. I have the deepest respect for Mary. We are indebted to her for bearing and raising Jesus, but I think her selection to be Jesus mother was the pinicle of her existance. I am certain she would agree.
Let's also consider this. If Jesus received any special treatment above and beyond that of a normal human child, it could be stated that he obtained an unfair advantage making it possible for him to attain pefection. Having a perfect mother would have validated such a claim. Jesus had to deal with human frailties, just as you and I.
In one spot in the Bible I believe Jesus stated that He had no more access to special powers than those available to the common man. The Holy Spirit is there for US. And we have access to Jesus even as He had access to God through prayer. Jesus only had God the Father to pray to, a being that hadn't lived as one of us, or experienced our existance.
This is a very powerful concept that most of us overlook. It also lends itself to the idea that man can and should live near a pefect existance. I do not feel that man will live a perfect existance until Jesus comes to call us up into the clouds with him, but I do believe that our probation will close before Jesus arrives back to collect us unto Himself. Those who are translated without seeing death will have been purjed of sin before that moment. IMO
Well, sorry: I do. Or rather, I believe God did. Gabriel's greeting to Mary, as recorded by St. Luke, was kecharitomene, "already fully graced". The status of being "already fully graced" is incompatible with sin.
This doesn't make Mary divine; it makes her actually less than Eve was before Eve fell. (But greater than any other human since then, excluding Jesus of course.)
Also, keep in mind that Jesus was bound to obey the law perfectly, part of which is "Honor thy father and thy mother." Since Jesus created his own mother, he was in a position to, and in fact was required to, honor her in a manner befitting his own stature as God. Certainly creating her in the thrall of sin would not be honoring her; sin defiles, it does not honor.
I said "name one," not ramble on about "phantasmagorical occurences [sp]" and "pre-extant myths" (should that be "pre-existant myths"?) And you object to a religion that is attached to actual historical events, as opposed to "spiritual discipline and meditation"? Interesting ... why do you think that religion should not be firmly anchored to objective historical reality?
My challenge stands: name one of these claims of orthodoxy that you cannot accept.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.