Confused?

Not me.

Timbo the Hooloovoo

[quote author="Scott Blackwell"]Jacob,

42.. of course

In base 13 :)

Glenn

Spong’s on the J’s right now (105.7 FM in Sydney).

Thanks for the heads up

I hereby nominate John Spong as the patron saint of Triple J ;) Like hand in glove…

He’s still on, they’re taking calls atm.

The next time God workshops his ideas regarding humanity, salvation and all, I reckon we ought to get spong on the committee.  I’m sure God would have a lot of time for his ideas and would write many of them into his next draft working paper.  Then God can run the ideas through some focus groups to ensure a high take-up rate.  Then we need to factor in a continuous improvement regimen and a robust feedback system to ensure Gods ideas stay in step with our own.  The current uppity God we have just dosen’t fit with the modern world. 

Or perhaps it could be a reality TV show..  “the humanist eye for the god-type guy”..

ROFL @ Rowen

Could someone please fill me in on what Spong had to say to the public of Australia (well, at least those who listen to Triple J)?

Ta :)

Rowen: Hahahah! :D

Dani: What I remember is:
- if you read the gospels and epistles the “right” way you see the miracles (and some/most stories) didn’t really happen, they were just the authors way of describing what they saw in Jesus.  Eg walking on water, Jesus kicking out money-changers in the temple.
- As the gospel writers and Paul were writing they “evolved” their understanding of Christ, and eventually adopted him to God or something ?
- Jesus is not a bridge between man and God, as that makes two false assumptions (i) that would mean we are fallen and sinful when we’re really just evolving and that (ii) one about God, which I can’t remember :/
- God is not omnipotent, if he was he would be immoral for not intervening to stop suffering (see: holocaust)
- “Fundamentalism” (particularly a “literal” reading of the bible) is the enemy of social progress and has been directly responsible for holding back women, science, blacks, homosexuality (a “new consciousness") and is responsible for slavery, wars, and other general nastiness.
- There is no absolute truth about God (that would be extreme arrogance) - we can only go by our experience of him (it?), and share that with each other. This is the way forward for interfaith dialogue.

He spoke quite well and demonstrated good err… knowledge (?) of the scriptures, with that air of authority that comes with age and many years developing certain ideas (however heretical).

Steve Cannane lapped it up.

So essentially he said:

God can only be as big as my head,
can only define morality as my heart desires it,
can only be as potent as I am,
can only be as real as last night’s dream,
can only act as I think he ought, and
can only be what my mind is determined to make him.

Or more concisely, “I am God”.

Of course Steve Cannane lapped it up. It’s quite probably what he already believed. Christianity offers him nothing. And requires nothing of him.

Read all about Spong’s emerging new consciousness in the SMH today

Of course he still misses the mark on what evangelical Christians are really saying about homosexuality but thats OK because

“The new consciousness on homosexuality has emerged from a consensus of modern medical and scientific data that asserts that sexual orientation is no more a matter of choice than is left-handedness. It is a matter of awakening to one’s own being and identity”

From my reading the latest modern and scientific data is actually swinging in completely the opposite direction. If any amongst us here are scienists and understand the latest data which Spong refers to could I encourage you to please write a letter into the editor- for the plain reason of holding Spong accountable to these misleading and inacccurate claims which he continuously makes and never seems to be publicly decried for?

I’m off to write my letter (which will have a different direction) in now (although of course since my name is not Claire Smith, Gordon Cheng or Lionel Windsor it won’t be published! Heheheheh)

edit:Well.. by jingo (as my father would say)… I was wrong. It has been shortlisted. Of course they did cut out half of it - but beggars can’t be choosers!

[quote author="Matthew Williams"]So essentially he said:

God can only be as big as my head,
can only define morality as my heart desires it,
can only be as potent as I am,
can only be as real as last night’s dream,
can only act as I think he ought, and
can only be what my mind is determined to make him.

Or more concisely, “I am God”.

Of course Steve Cannane lapped it up. It’s quite probably what he already believed. Christianity offers him nothing. And requires nothing of him.

I think this would make a *brilliant* letter to the SMH.  So what about it, Matthew?  letters@smh.com.au

Matthew William’s litany (or whatever it was) was opportunistic; Spong’s very criticism of evangelicals is that their god is defined, like an Act of Parliament, by words on a page....

Anyway...Dani, there is actually far less understanding in scientific circles of the causes of left-handedness than the causes of homosexuality.  Yet we no longer anathematise left-handed people.  The scientific data suggests that homosexuality is a combination of genetic predisposition, hormonal influences in utero (influencing brain structure), and early childhood development.  I think I’d be on pretty safe ground representing that as a consensus viewpoint, although I’m not a scientist.

Christopher Tyack wrote:

Matthew William’s litany (or whatever it was) was opportunistic; Spong’s very criticism of evangelicals is that their god is defined, like an Act of Parliament, by words on a page....

And he is wrong. Our God is defined by Jesus Christ, the word incarnate, and inseparable from him is the testimony to him he endorsed by way of apostolic appointment, the word written down. That is not unique to evangelicalism, that is Christianity, Catholic, Orthodox or Reformed.

Spong fails to understand evangelicals because his background is fundamentalist. He can’t seem to understand that the two approaches arrive at similar positions on some issues in very different ways.

And for all his rhetoric, he is not much chop at listening himself. I have tried to understand his declared position before critiquing it. He has never afforded evangelicals the same, as his article in the SMH typifies.

Christopher Tyack wrote:

Anyway...Dani, there is actually far less understanding in scientific circles of the causes of left-handedness than the causes of homosexuality. Yet we no longer anathematise left-handed people. The scientific data suggests that homosexuality is a combination of genetic predisposition, hormonal influences in utero (influencing brain structure), and early childhood development. I think I’d be on pretty safe ground representing that as a consensus viewpoint, although I’m not a scientist.

Scripture never points to immorality in left-handedness. The comparison Spong makes is completely beside the point, twisting words freely because he has no moral benchmark except that of his own free creation.

Spong fails to understand evangelicals because his background is fundamentalist.

No. He went to Virginia Theological Seminary - probably the best known Evangelical Seminary in the USA, and grew up in an a standard Protestant Episcopal Church. His background is 100% evangelical. He even supports lay presidency and is opposed to wearing chasubles. Fancy that?

G’day Chris B,

[quote author="Chris B"]His background is 100% evangelical.

But does he describe his background (and all those Christians of similar persuasion) as evangelical or fundamentalist?

Timbo