Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-15-2005, 06:24 PM

Bishop Spong has a new book out: The Sins of Scripture : Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love

From Publisher's Weekly:

Quote:

Spong (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism), a retired Episcopal bishop and prominent spokesperson for liberal Christianity, focuses this book on "terrible texts" which have been used to justify such "sins" as overbreeding, degradation of the environment, sexism, child abuse and anti-Semitism. These biblical texts, according to Spong, are not the incontrovertible Word of God, but flawed human responses to perceived threats. An incendiary example of this is Spong's assertion that Paul was a closeted gay man whose anti-gay statements were motivated by little more than his own self-loathing. Spong does not stop there; in the course of the book he suggests that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married; that none of the supernatural events described in the Bible took place (including the resurrection); and that theism itself is a misunderstanding of God. Interestingly, readers who do not endorse Spong's radical reinterpretation of Christianity will still find much in this book they can affirm. His explanation of the roots of Christian anti-Semitism is fascinating and much less challenging to orthodoxy than many of his other claims.

reviewed here by Nicholas Kristof in an essay entitled "Liberal Bible Thumping."

Quote:

Liberals can and should confront Bible-thumping preachers on their own terms, for the scriptural emphasis on justice and compassion gives the left plenty of ammunition. After all, the Bible depicts Jesus as healing lepers, not slashing Medicaid.

I'm not sure if this really belongs in the Politics Forum. Liberal Christians seem to want to read love and compassion into scripture, just as liberals in general want to find a right to privacy in the US Constitution. If I thought of myself as a Christian, I would want Spong's interpretations to be true.

I gather from some of the reviews that Spong proclaims himself opposed to a theistic God. I'm not clear what this means, but I wish him well.

judge · 05-15-2005, 06:36 PM

Without having read the book I would say it is probably a pity that he wades into questionable areas.

from the publishers review.

Quote:

Spong does not stop there; in the course of the book he suggests that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married.

Even if this were true, why bother even going there. it may just make him appear as someone who will believe any old thing.

This would IMO work against any effort to rescue the bible from those who insist God creates some peoplefor the sole purpose of torturing them forever or some other nonsense.

It is quite easy to show the true character of the at which is divine from the bible , but quite difficult to make a case for jesus being married etc.....

Chris Weimer · 05-15-2005, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Even if this were true, why bother even going there. it may just make him appear as someone who will believe any old thing.

This would IMO work against any effort to rescue the bible from those who insist God creates some peoplefor the sole purpose of torturing them forever or some other nonsense.

It is quite easy to show the true character of the at which is divine from the bible , but quite difficult to make a case for jesus being married etc.....

I'm going to have to agree with judge. Unless Jag's little theory about Mary being the beloved disciple, there is no textual support for Jesus and Mary being married, although there is a tradition and for most Catholics that's good enough.

Fr.Andrew · 05-16-2005, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If I thought of myself as a Christian, I would want Spong's interpretations to be true.

(Fr Andrew): Yes...if Christianity has a long-range future, I think it's in the direction that Spong wants to take it.

Fr.Andrew · 05-16-2005, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

I'm going to have to agree with judge. Unless Jag's little theory about Mary being the beloved disciple, there is no textual support for Jesus and Mary being married, although there is a tradition and for most Catholics that's good enough.

(Fr Andrew): Spong touches on the possiblity in several of his books and offers scriptural support for his view. Things like Mary being the only consistent Easter morning participant as well as her's being the only name that pops up in every list of female followers, and her immediate post-resurrection encounter with Jesus in John. Considered individually, they're ho hum, but when taken together the case becomes stronger and makes more sense.
Worth a read, anyway.

IvanJames · 05-16-2005, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Liberal Christians seem to want to read love and compassion into scripture, just as liberals in general want to find a right to privacy in the US Constitution.

Quote:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I think that anyone with an IQ above room temperature would think that this assumes some degree of privacy. Secure in your effects, house, papers (writings), person...not without a warrant, anyway.

Thank you, Anglo-Saxon Common Law (not biblical law, mind you!)!!!

---Ivan James

Toto · 05-16-2005, 06:41 PM

You are right - Roe v. Wade was based in part on the 4th Amendment. I wonder why the religious right can't see that?

Haran · 05-16-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You are right - Roe v. Wade was based in part on the 4th Amendment. I wonder why the religious right can't see that?

Because the right to life trumps it...

IvanJames · 05-17-2005, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

Because the right to life trumps it...

Says who? The Supreme Court doesn't seem to think so. The Constitution states that nobody can be denied life without due process, and the Declaration of Independence puts life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on the same level.

Can we get back to the OT before we get booted to Church/State?

---Ivan James

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-16-2005, 06:41 PM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	You are right - Roe v. Wade was based in part on the 4th Amendment. I wonder why the religious right can't see that?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.