All Comments (7)

John Spong is simply a breath of fresh air. I had long ago given up on Christianity. In the process many friendships were damaged beyond repair or destroyed. Fundamentalist Christian thinking, or more accurately my inability to embrace it, was the culprit in all of this.

For me modern 21st fundamentalist Christianity had turned ugly in the truest sense of the word. The things and attitudes that are now being preached in the name of Jesus is truly a sin. One only has to imagine Jesus' reaction if he could see what is now being perpetrated in his name and life's example. There is almost no connection to what Christianity has now become and the source. It's truly tragic.

I was, and still am not, a biblical scholar in even the broadest sense of the word. Still through all of it I knew that there simply must have been something very special about Jesus. How else could one explain such a movement - an entire religion and church, being developed in his name, memory and example. John Spong has helped me understand what Jesus, his life (and death) truly means and stands for. He has brought relevancy and sense to what was little more than antiquated, conflicting non-sense (which are really what the holy scriptures are if you try to embrace them as literal and inerrant).

More than any other group, it is the Christian community itself that needs the intellect and spirit that John Spong offers to the movement. Fundamentalist Christian thinking (if you dare call it that) is killing Christianity.

Gary Marsh.

Phil, sorry for jumping to conclusions - you seemed very angry & support Spong. Almost all his supporters are the gay activists (so your assumption is wrong too - I don't 'like guys', I just made an assumption since they are statistically the most vocal Spong supporters).

But if you are a Christian you should reject his beliefs. He does not believe in the God of the bible (so why's he so concerned with being called 'Christian' then?). He doesn't believe God can or has spoken to us. He believes his vauge "God" ('the ground of all being' - whatever that is) is powerless to do miracles or intervene at all.

If you care about people's souls and have faith in Christ (in his person, in the teachings of the bible, realizing your own sin, and gratitude that he saved you) you should be WARNING homosexuals about their sin, not approving of them. You probably can't cure a Jeffrey Dahmer of his evil *impulses*, but you still have a duty to preach the truth to him. He may feel 'unfulfilled' because he won't act on his 'desires' but on the whole he will be grateful that God has given him a love of righteousness that allows him to overcome his evil desires. He would have triumphed over sin and death. You don't think EVERYONE should act on all their desires all the time, right? Even if that makes them momentarily unsatisfied in one sense?

What would you say of a medical doctor who didn't want people to feel bad about smoking, drinking, eating junkfood so he said to them - 'Go ahead, it's healthy for you' because he wanted them to FEEL good at THAT MOMENT. His mistake won't have consequences right away, but he should know better if he really loves them.

If you are a follower of Christ, preach the truth of His word. THink on this - remember the watchman in Ezekiel.

Anonymous - don't mistake my rationality with brokenness. God is on my side. The broken ones include the phony Christian that I rebutted, which I am bitter towards. By the way, what's with the website about converting gay people to straight people? Are you trying to allude that I'm gay because of what I wrote? If so, what planet are you from? There is nothing in my response that has anything to with that. I think you need to learn to read also. By the way, I'm married and a crusader of Christ. If "gay" is in your head when you are reading my response, then I think you have some issues to work out with your own sexuality. Also, you can't convert gay people. If your gay, you will always be gay. Gay feelings don't come from living in sin, gay feelings come from being GAY! Every time I felt distant from God, I never thought, hmm maybe I should hook up with a guy. People who do are GAY! But don't worry, God is cool with gay people, so you don't have to obsess about going to hell because you like guys.

Phil, you can overcome sin. You can experience forgiveness and leave all your bitterness and brokenness behind:

http://www.exodus-international.org

Hey, SpongJohn SquarePantheist - learn how to read. Your flawed analysis of Mr. Spong's text explains why you are a pastor; probably of some non denominational church were you pretend to be real Christians. By the way, the Bible isn't the word of God. But I won't try to explain because it's obvious that your are an idiot. You don't deserve to critique Mr. Spong.

YOU KNOW NOTHING!

"Vague allegations about war" - You don't have a clue.

Hey, SpongJohn SquarePantheist - learn how to read. Your flawed analysis of Mr. Spong's text explains why you are a pastor; probably of some non denominational church were you pretend to be real Christians. By the way, the Bible isn't the word of God. But I won't try to explain because it's obvious that your are an idiot. You don't deserve to critique Mr. Spong.

YOU KNOW NOTHING!

"Vague allegations about war" - You don't have a clue? Do you?

Aaargh... the Spongster's at it again:

"It is God’s business, not the state’s or the church’s, to determine whether any act is forgivable or not."

Well yes, but you'd also agree it's God's business to define sin, which He has in Scripture, so why do you continue to deny it? Observing someone (such as Clinton) commit sin according to God's word and saying 'hey, that's wrong - you need to stop that and repent', is not saying that the sins in question are 'unforgivable'. You create a false contrast between the issue of personal tawdry behavior, which can be known with certainty, and vague allegations about 'war', or 'environmental degredation' which are open to debate.

"Is sex outside of marriage a sin? That is the way religious people still pose the issue, but that question does not address reality. As a pastor I have confronted issues where sex inside marriage was sinful. I have known rape to occur inside marriage."

What is Spong saying here? Just because sexual sin can occur within marriage, does that mean sex outside marriage is not sinful? That makes as much sense as saying that because you can die in a car accident even if you are wearing a seatbelt, therefore the seatbelt has no effect on your safety.

"Premarital sex is almost a universal practice in the developed world against which an “abstinence campaign” is laughably ineffective. The reasons for this are not that we have become an immoral generation, as ecclesiastical leaders like to presume."
This is circular reasoning. He begins with the presupposition that fornication is not sinful, and then (surprise) reaches the conclusion that fornication is not sinful, because he speculates the motives for it are different in the present society. But does this make any sense? Immoral acts are immoral intrinsically. If I steal and offer a novel excuse for it, it's still stealing. It's still wrong. Spong wrongheadedly assumes that because abstinence is 'ineffective' he can define away sin. But if antislavery were 'ineffective' in convincing southern plantation owners to give up on slavery, would that mean slavery is OK? You see how pig ignorant and inconsistent this man is...