Bishop Spong

lakeman · 07-16-2008, 01:08 PM

Maybe you have seen this signature line. Presently it is at the end of each of johnlocke's posts. But does it make any sense?

"The Bible has been used for centuries by Christians as a weapon of control. To read it literally is to believe in a three-tiered universe, to condone slavery, to treat women as inferior creatures, to believe that sickness is caused by God's punishment and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. When someone tells me that they believe the Bible is the 'literal and inerrant word of God,' I always ask, 'Have you ever read it'?"
~Bishop John Shelby Spong

Firstly who is Bishop Spong?

He is one of those thinkers (and I use that term loosely) who is so liberal in his Christianity that he no longer even has a religion remotely resembling what the rest of us have. His Christianity and what he says about it are so different from mainstream Christianity that what he says about it does not even apply.

According to wiki these are two things that he says:

One is that theism is not a valid conception of God. Kinda like saying God is not God. For Christians we have a certain set of beliefs that are the core of what we believe. One of them is that Christ is God. There are various catechisms and statements of faith that all serve to define who is a Christian and who is not. Basically they end up saying that if you are a Muslim then you are not a Christian. Spong would reject this basic idea that Christ is God since he rejects the idea that thinking about God makes sense.

Yet he calls himself a Christian. Why? Well he explains that he is a Christian because he believes that Jesus Christ fully expressed the presence of a God of compassion and selfless love, and that this is the meaning of the early Christian proclamation, "Jesus is Lord"

So thinking about God is invalid but he is a Christian because Jesus expressed the presence of a God of compassion and when early Christians said that Jesus is Lord they didn't really mean that.

Ok so on to what he said above:

"The Bible has been used for centuries by Christians as a weapon of control.

Yep that is true. Is there anything that has not been used as a weapon of control by someone? Does abuse of it make it less true?

To read it literally

Does anyone really read it literally? Don't all readers know that when they read something some parts of it are literal and some parts of it use various literary tools. I don't think a single example could be found of anyone who thinks that the whole bible should be read literally. Jesus claimed to be a door. No one thinks that Jesus is a door and everyone knows that this is a metaphor.

To read it literally is to believe in a three-tiered universe, to condone slavery, to treat women as inferior creatures, to believe that sickness is caused by God's punishment and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession.

So firstly no one is reading it literally and secondly virtually no one is drawing these conclusions based on a literal reading that is not happening. What do we call it when one sets up a ridiculous argument and then proceeds to prove that it is false? At the very best we could say that he is arguing against medieval theology that was never really embraced by everyone even in the height of the middle ages. At the worst he is making an intentional and blatantly wrong statement to deceive people.

When someone tells me that they believe the Bible is the 'literal

When someone tells him that he is apparently not smart enough to realize that they are saying that they believe that there are some literally true statements in the bible. Does he even bother to ask if they believe that there are also some non-literal statements in the bible?

When someone tells me that they believe the Bible is the 'literal and inerrant word of God,' I always ask, 'Have you ever read it'?"

This is a sort of rhetorical statement. It is meant to say that anyone who has read the bible could not possible find anything in it that is literal. So when Matthew says that Jesus walked or ate or did anything else this could not possible be literal. Walking must be a metaphor for something. Using scholarly flowery language that loses all meaning I might say that walking is a metaphor for the expression of the presence of a God of compassion and selfless love. But that would be silliness. Some people are too smart for their own good.

The sad reality of Bishop Spong is that he is smart enough to know that he is arguing against ridiculousness that virtually no one believes. He is trying to advance his own case but doing a poor job of it. And what is his case?

If he were to make his case and do a better job of it he might say something like:

"There are things in the bible that are literal and there are things that are literary devices. I believe that the deity of God, creation story, the virgin birth, the supernatural and miracles, the cross, the resurrection, the ascension, objective ethics, prayer, and justice from God are all literary creations and are not meant to be taken as any sort of truth." (which goes back to what I said about him not even being a Christian)

He would back up his claims based on his belief in darwinism, newtonianism, and copernicanism despite that fact that there is no reason for these to neccessiate such belief or to reject the traditional belief. If he is anything like other liberal scholars he really believes these things just because that is what he wants to believe. The facts do not drive the conclusions it is his sentiments that drive them. Just because he cannot reconcile his religious sentiments on reality and slavery and women and sickness with the compassionate and loving God that most everyone else finds no trouble reconciling with these things he must reject it all. Bishop Spong, I am sorry that you lack compassion so much that you cannot see it in the word of God and must re-create what the authoritative God wrote even though you have no such authority to do so. His reasons for rejecting these as literal are grossly biased, they are not better than the reasons others give for accepting them as literal while they are worse. I have no objection to a debate about any of these being literal or figurative. But by all means let's use reasonable arguments and not just resort to sentiment and anti-supernatural bias.

Think for myself · 07-16-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakeman

"The Bible has been used for centuries by Christians as a weapon of control.

Yep that is true. Is there anything that has not been used as a weapon of control by someone? Does abuse of it make it less true?

To read it literally

Does anyone really read it literally? Don't all readers know that when they read something some parts of it are literal and some parts of it use various literary tools. I don't think a single example could be found of anyone who thinks that the whole bible should be read literally. Jesus claimed to be a door. No one thinks that Jesus is a door and everyone knows that this is a metaphor.

To read it literally is to believe in a three-tiered universe, to condone slavery, to treat women as inferior creatures, to believe that sickness is caused by God's punishment and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession.

So firstly no one is reading it literally and secondly virtually no one is drawing these conclusions based on a literal reading that is not happening. What do we call it when one sets up a ridiculous argument and then proceeds to prove that it is false? At the very best we could say that he is arguing against medieval theology that was never really embraced by everyone even in the height of the middle ages. At the worst he is making an intentional and blatantly wrong statement to deceive people.

When someone tells me that they believe the Bible is the 'literal

When someone tells him that he is apparently not smart enough to realize that they are saying that they believe that there are some literally true statements in the bible. Does he even bother to ask if they believe that there are also some non-literal statements in the bible?

When someone tells me that they believe the Bible is the 'literal and inerrant word of God,' I always ask, 'Have you ever read it'?"

This is a sort of rhetorical statement. It is meant to say that anyone who has read the bible could not possible find anything in it that is literal. So when Matthew says that Jesus walked or ate or did anything else this could not possible be literal. Walking must be a metaphor for something. Using scholarly flowery language that loses all meaning I might say that walking is a metaphor for the expression of the presence of a God of compassion and selfless love. But that would be silliness. Some people are too smart for their own good.

The sad reality of Bishop Spong is that he is smart enough to know that he is arguing against ridiculousness that virtually no one believes. He is trying to advance his own case but doing a poor job of it. And what is his case?

If he were to make his case and do a better job of it he might say something like:

"There are things in the bible that are literal and there are things that are literary devices. I believe that the deity of God, creation story, the virgin birth, the supernatural and miracles, the cross, the resurrection, the ascension, objective ethics, prayer, and justice from God are all literary creations and are not meant to be taken as any sort of truth." (which goes back to what I said about him not even being a Christian)

He would back up his claims based on his belief in darwinism, newtonianism, and copernicanism despite that fact that there is no reason for these to neccessiate such belief or to reject the traditional belief. If he is anything like other liberal scholars he really believes these things just because that is what he wants to believe. The facts do not drive the conclusions it is his sentiments that drive them. Just because he cannot reconcile his religious sentiments on reality and slavery and women and sickness with the compassionate and loving God that most everyone else finds no trouble reconciling with these things he must reject it all. Bishop Spong, I am sorry that you lack compassion so much that you cannot see it in the word of God and must re-create what the authoritative God wrote even though you have no such authority to do so. His reasons for rejecting these as literal are grossly biased, they are not better than the reasons others give for accepting them as literal while they are worse. I have no objection to a debate about any of these being literal or figurative. But by all means let's use reasonable arguments and not just resort to sentiment and anti-supernatural bias.

Great post Lake.

Now you say that the stories in the bible are meant to be metaphorical, but there are many people who will pick and choose, in order to make their own points, which ones are metaphorical and which ones are literal.

Sparta · 07-16-2008, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Think for myself

Great post Lake.

Now you say that the stories in the bible are meant to be metaphorical, but there are many people who will pick and choose, in order to make their own points, which ones are metaphorical and which ones are literal.

Well wait a minute now, what about Paul?

"Women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. (1 Cor 14:34)

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

Now I understand that being one in Christ Jesus counts as a metaphor, but tell me how the points, the opposing points, he makes are metaphors. On one hand Paul is telling us that women are not equal to men, on the other hand he's telling us that all are equal.

Think for myself · 07-16-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparta

Well wait a minute now, what about Paul?

"Women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. (1 Cor 14:34)

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

Now I understand that being one in Christ Jesus counts as a metaphor, but tell me how the points, the opposing points, he makes are metaphors. On one hand Paul is telling us that women are not equal to men, on the other hand he's telling us that all are equal.

Beats the hell out of me how people choose which one to follow. Most likely the one that will benefit them the most personally.

Sparta · 07-16-2008, 01:36 PM

It goes on. You need a scholor to decypher this stuff.

35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

36What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

39Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

40Let all things be done decently and in order.

lakeman · 07-16-2008, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Think for myself

Great post Lake.

Now you say that the stories in the bible are meant to be metaphorical, but there are many people who will pick and choose, in order to make their own points, which ones are metaphorical and which ones are literal.

In most cases, it isn't too hard to figure out with some reasonable debate. Christianity is a thinking man's religion. When people fail to think we can expect all sorts of problems.

freecell · 07-16-2008, 01:45 PM

You don’t need to be a scholar. Our Master gives us the knowledge to understand.

michaelr · 07-16-2008, 01:48 PM

I am a Christian, but I do see religion as a form of control. It always has been and always will be. If your gov don't get you, your religion will. I agree with this statement.

Quote:

"The Bible has been used for centuries by Christians as a weapon of control. To read it literally is to believe in a three-tiered universe, to condone slavery, to treat women as inferior creatures, to believe that sickness is caused by God's punishment and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. When someone tells me that they believe the Bible is the 'literal and inerrant word of God,' I always ask, 'Have you ever read it'?"
~Bishop John Shelby Spong

Think for myself · 07-16-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakeman

In most cases, it isn't too hard to figure out with some reasonable debate. Christianity is a thinking man's religion. When people fail to think we can expect all sorts of problems.

Right. Let's see.

Handling of serpents? Real.

Paritng the Red Sea? Metaphorical.

Paying Cesear his tax? Real.

Two of every animal on Earth on a boat measured in cubits? Metaphorical.

The Earth is 6,000 years old? Real.

A serpent gave a quince to Eve? Metaphorical.

Yeah, makes perfect sense to me.

Sparta · 07-16-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakeman

In most cases, it isn't too hard to figure out with some reasonable debate. Christianity is a thinking man's religion. When people fail to think we can expect all sorts of problems.

So basically it requires some level of intellegence for one to decypher the meaning, and most people need countless hours of study time in order to make sense of the lessons. Most people don't have that sort of time, and so they hire out a theologist to translate the text in to modern applications, which is where we end up with abuses of this particular religion. That seems to be your case, am I correct?