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)
Do you mean to tell me that you don't do what YOU think is right?
And that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Personal experience is profoundly misleading, which is why Scripture says that the heart is deceitful above all things. That is not to say that personal experience is always wrong. It isn't. But it is sometimes wrong. And experience disconnected from objective reality is the fast track to insanity; in fact, it practically defines insanity.
The virgin birth. The trinity.
Except that the gnostic works you point to posit some things that are far stranger and less coherent than anything orthodoxy posits about either of those two. I don't see the virgin birth as remotely hard to accept.
All miracles interpreted as literal.
I would not believe in a God who didn't work literal miracles. Why bother -- atheistic rationalism makes far more sense. In fact, I would not believe in a God who didn't continue to work miracles right up to the present time, not necessarily for me or in my presence, but documented to a reasonable degree of certainty. A non-miracle-working God would be quite worthless.
The pope (in the case of catholicism) as the head of a church. Starting to get the picture?
Yes, basically. Your problem isn't with "orthodoxy," per se. It's that you read the Bible and are unwilling to believe it actually means what it says.
As for your other comments (some of which I've unfortunately deleted), I'm curious how familiar you are with the Catholic tradition of contemplative prayer. Ever read any St. John of the Cross or Teresa of Avila?
As long as you don't impart pefection to Mary, I'm in agreement with you.
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.
137 posted on 3/25/02 2:46 PM Pacific by Campion
Rather than disagree with you, I think it would be more productive to explain that I don't believe in different levels of humans. I know that some religions impart Sainthood and other significant titles to individuals based on their works. That's something I've never accepted. Does that mean that I am right and they are wrong? No, I don't look at it that way. I don't feel condemned if I am wrong with regard to this either.
I think that Gabriel was expressing a greeting to Mary, nothing more. It is my opinion that humans are not perfect. Perfection is not imparted to them.
The essential issue for Christians as I see it, is whether Christ's death on the cross truly purchased their souls or not. Above and beyond that, did they accept that sacrifice and claim it's promise. Did they do their best to live a life that Christ would approve of? If they do these things, Jesus will forgive their shortcomings and accept their repentance. I pray to Jesus for forgiveness. I don't believe man justifiably enters into this transaction, communication or whatever you wish to term it.
When it comes to the acceptance of Sainthood or the Deification of Mary, I don't feel salvation hinges on it. Therefore I'm content to agree to disagree.
I appreciate the comments. Take care.
You can come to your own conclusions, but you can't compare those conclusions with what Polycarp and Irenaeus themselves learned from the Apostles. Neither you nor anyone else today has a claim to Apostolicity. They did.
Interesting...you heard it here folks, Tanngrisnirism is ahistorical.
Absolutely correct! I get so sick and tired of people who want everyone to know that they're "Christian" but whose only goal in life is to tear down the faith that they give lip service too. Sadly, just because they have access to some kind of public forum to get their message out, week-faithed believers will be led astray by them.
Bottom line is this: if you claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ, but you live by different standards than what God has laid out for us in His Word (the Bible) then you are deluding yourself.
God bless you for speaking the truth and being willing to "take the arrows" if they come.
In your rejection of history you are creating a religion of absurdity. So it doesn't matter whether Jesus bodily rose from the dead, it doesn't matter whether he founded a church, it doesn't matter. Meditation and asceticism is what matters.
Pray you don't get 12 jurors with the same attitude if you are ever falsely accused of murder.
You just don't get it.
spong is an idiot.
A great non-answer. Which tells me you don't want to answer the question. Because you know what will happen next.
That's really scary. Will you make me disappear? Never mind, I'll do that myself. If you hadn't asked such a silly question, I would have been glad to answer. If you read the article you would realize that the quote which I posted and the comment I made concerning that quote have contextual references which are simple and clear and need no further explanation. To most, that is.
Don't be so paranoid. I was referring to the fact that if you actually answered the question, you would then have to defend your answer.
The point I'm trying to make is that we all ultimately make up our own minds about what is right and what is wrong. Just as there are no two snowflakes alike, there are also no two people who can agree on exactly what the bible is saying and how it applies to our lives.
You imply that you do not make a decision of what is right or wrong. If you have a question about something, you just go to the "Big Book Of Laws" as you imply the Bible is and get your answer there.
But in order to get your answer, you have to interpret the passage you are reading a certain way. And your interpretation is not going to go along with what a lot of other people feel.
Just look at how many different Christian denominations there are. If everyone interpreted the bible the same way there really would be a holy catholic (small "c") church.
To make a long story short. Everyone on this thread and on this earth is a John Shelby Spong. Everyone interprets the bible differently. He just admits it.
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.