Posted on 03/25/2002 7:44:16 AM PST by US admirer
In larger part, however, the timing was simply right: Christianity was now an established religion, and it had the support of the emperor. Christians no longer had to be concerned with literally staying alive from day to day, and it finally had the time to sort out the many difficulties which had arisen over the course of 300 years.
What's really interesting is that people like Spong, far from bringing up something new, are simply reviving those old heresies for the new millenium.
Which pretty much opens the door for the things you rail aginst.
I think you should have chosen a more competent God who ought to be able to, out of all possible creatures, craft unambiguous writing to it's nth degree. Alas, he seems to write like a self-educated goat herder. Coincidence?
Methinks the good bishop has just contradicted himself. He just set up an external standard !! LOL
For example, one of the Myers Park church members organized a big show - I'll leave his name out of this - but those of you in Charlotte might have seen it. It was called "My Son, The Forgiver" - or something like that - and it went on a multi-denominational church tour in the area. They'd asked me to do the guitfiddling for it - but I declined because I didn't have the time. But I went to see it - and was completely amazed. The wholesale reinterpretation of Jesus's sayings was absolutely shameless. "If Jesus were alive today, he would embrace the gay cause blah, blah...the people of his time misunderstood his message...blah blah." This play would have made the author of that self-indulgent book "Conversations with God" blush, for its hubris in deigning to completely rewrite biblical history, quotes and facts to suit the "progressives" of the UMC.
So if you want to join a completely "hip" church that suits the momentary fashionable whims of "progressive" society - check out the Myers Park and Dilworth's UMC's.
uhhh. Where in the bible does it say that fellow human beings should be refered to as "creatures?"
From here it looks like you are the disgrace to Christ.
There are many churches and ministers who are still standing up from within for the pure faith. The Episcopal churches with which I have personal experience,for example, have baptismal tanks and use them.
Rectors from the "developing nations" for the most part cannot be told from evangelicals doctrinally and surely wouldn't be asked to take a UMC pulpit. These stalwart men, cheered on and helped by U.S. and British churches who treasure the Word, have prevented the rest of the church councils from departing from the requisite "plum line” of Biblical truth.
There is still a great deal of difference between Catholic and Episcopal churches. I believe that a number of the elitist hierarchy of the Episcopal church, however, would prefer Catholicism if the celibacy requirement were lifted.
This church is in the balance. If you know how, perhaps you will sense the Lord’s challenge to pray for it.
I grew up Episcopal, but the beginnings of this drift two to three decades ago drove me to the LCMS. But now, even in the LCMS, I am seeing signs of a desire for "tolerance" and "inclusiveness" as evinced in a quote from my pastor saying, "...we must be careful which sinners we say we will not accept in the church", to which I responded, "How about unrepentant ones?"
So the battle rages....Keep up the good fight all....
Retired Bishop Spong raising cyber-hackles (The Bishop of Cybersex)
Does this thesis even mean anything? Since when is Theism "a way of defining God"? Doesn't it merely mean belief in the existence of God (or the gods) without reference to a particular religion?
It's a little more complex than that. I've heard them (Anglicans) describe themselves as a third way between Protestants and Roman Catholics. There is a Protestant(conservative evangelical) wing and a wing that is very close to Rome. The Church in England which is under Government control and the American (Episcopalian) Church is dominated by heretics(often referred to as theological liberals.) I guess they are a third wing.
He should leave orthodox Christianity alone!!
God bless, brother, and have a good Holy Week.
uhhh...I'm made in the image and likeness of my Creator. Creators create creatures. Just thought you'd like to know, since you don't seem to me to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. Aw shucks, I did it again, the bible doesn't say I can refer to you as a knife does it??
Sorry but you are wrong. Christians have always held to the virgin birth of Christ. It has never been a debatable issue. I think that what you are referring to is the immaculate conception of Mary. Which was made an essential belief of the Roman Catholic Church in the 1800s.
It's a matter of perspective. If God is just a human invention to describe things we don't understand, then his comment makes sense.
For all that he's an apostate, Spong's a very intelligent man. He cannot have missed the manifest illogic of his position -- which to me suggests some interesting conclusions.
I think Spong's problem is that he actually believes in God, but at the same time he (Spong) wants to be the one to decide what's right or wrong. Pridefulness, IOW. I think we're all familiar enough with it to know what intellectual lengths one will go to justify "doing my will, not His."
It's no excuse, and one suspects that the words in Matthew might well apply to Spong: "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.' (Matt. 7:21-23)
How about Mark 16:15?
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to everycreature.
Jesus didn't send the disciples out to speak to animals.
If you happen to consult your dictionary (any edition) after consulting your Bible, you'll find that the secondary definition of "creature" is nearly always "man" or "human being". Nothing inappropriate in its use, even as an insult.
In fact, as an insult, it's rather charitable.
See my #77. His position is the logical conclusion to what might as well be called "rational religion," wherein humans are supposed to have the ability to decide what is and is not "ethical" for the times. (Spong's #9)
IOW, it's relativism writ large.
Interestingly, the objectivists (to include many libertarians) reach the same conclusions as Spong, for much the same reason: they reject the rule of a transcendant God in favor of human freedom of action. As such, they recognize no moral bedrock, and instead build their moral house on a foundation of sand.
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.