All Comments (54)

TO RAFAEL:

I am not just talking about Jesus claiming to be God-Incarnate, which He Is, but also everything else about His Life.

Do you really think that 'shrinks' have all the answers?

I have met God, Who Is a Trinity, and guess what, I don't know everything, I don't need to.

I am just a messenger, whether or not anyone believes in what is said in the bible, one of the intriguing things is, God said, "I will send the simple to confound the wise", well Here I am.

One of the interesting things that Jesus said was to become child-like as opposed to childish, there is a big difference.

I am not here to force anything on anyone, neither was Jesus, when people try to force their beliefs and/or their holy books on anyone, they are going against what Jesus taught.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth] at the dawning of the seventh day.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Baum:

Jesus need not be the most delusional person ever. He is one of a large number of people who thought and/or claimed that they were god incarnate. So there is an in-between--he was simply delusional, as have been many of his disciples.

Which brings us back to you. Forget SpongJohn's advice to talk to a priest. I think you ought to talk to a shrink. Seriously, you need help.

And SpongJohn, now you know what you "sane" Christians look like to the rest of us, asserting your own "truths."

TO SPONGJOHN SQUAREPANTHEIST:

Priests are not God. Pope Benedict XVI is not God, God is God.

Did Jesus get the High Priest or anyone else's permission?

I have been chosen by God and it is up to God to see me thru.

It is God's Plan, not ours, even tho we are to be instruments, so to speak, of God it is up to God who He chooses, not us humans, it is by our free will that we can say YES to God.

I do not need any human being's permission to do what God has chosen for me to do.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Baum, have you discussed your views with your priest? Do you think Benedict XVI would disagree with your views?

TO RAFAEL:

I would like to present something to ponder: Jesus was either the most delusional person that ever walked on this planet or He is God-Incarnate.

There is no in between, one or the other.

Time will tell if I am the New Testament Moses or not but Jesus is Who He said that He Is.

Take care, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Baum says, "I am mentioned in the bible in different places and I will tell you that really came as quite a shock to me."

Thomas Baum also claims that he does not suffer from delusions of grandeur.

I can only wish him peace in his delusions.

TO SPONGJOHN SQUAREPANTHEIST:

I am a Catholic and I cherish my Catholic faith.

You asked, "are you a universalist?", if by universalist, do I believe that God wins and that God has a Plan and has had that Plan since before creation for not only ALL OF HUMANITY but also all of creation as in, "the new heavens and the new earth", do I believe that Jesus by taking the sins of ALL HUMANITY upon Himself went to the uttermost depths of hell, so to speak, and that since God Himself did that for us that He won the keys, so to speak, and will use them in due time, [God's Time] and that Jesus then left it in our laps, so to speak, to continue what He started and let us know that "IT IS FINISHED" even tho we had work to do, He wanted us to know He would see us thru in whatever job that God had chosen for us to do and that we were to take His yoke upon us so we didn't have to do it alone and also that He would send the Holy Spirit to help us and guide us, then yes, I most definitely believe that God's Plan is for ALL OF US to be with Him in the [new heavens and the new earth].

You asked, "do you mean you possess special revelation apart from scripture?", I am not sure what you mean by this, but I will try to explain what I mean.

God, the Father, came into my heart and I knew, just knew that It was Him and by the way God the Father did not say a word. The next day, God the Holy Spirit came into my body while I was at a Mass at St. Luke's Church in Ocean City, Md and I just knew It was the Holy Spirit, I just knew and He revealed to me that the Eucharist is Jesus, not by sight or any words, I just knew.

God always sends someone, does He not?

It is God's choice of who He chooses, is it not?

Do you remember in the Book of Revelation that it says, "God will declare Victory in favor of the Holy Ones" well God chose me to let the world know but it will not come to Fruition until God, Himself does it.

Remember Jesus said, "Night is coming when no man can work", He also said, "My Father has been busy even until now" and if you remember in Genesis it says, "On the seventh day God Blest, Rested and Made Holy" guess what the six days of creation are God Days, how long each of the first five lasted, I don't know and I also don't know how much longer the sixth day is going to last but the dawning of the seventh day will arrive.

A few hours later, God allowed satan to come down and battle me for 24 plus hours, for quite awhile after this I thought that God had sicced him on me and it took awhile and by awhile I mean like weeks or months, I don't quite remember, to realize that God allowed satan to do what he did, like in the Book of Job when satan got special permission from God, actually twice, to do what he did to Job.

As far as "apart from scripture", as you put it, I am mentioned in the bible in different places and I will tell you that really came as quite a shock to me.

By the way, we are all in this together and I do mean all.

God is a Being of Love, Jesus taught Love, "THE WORD MADE FLESH" that Word is Love, He taught God, God is the Law, Love is the Law, as I have said before God is not a loving God but is Love, Love is not an attribute of God, It is His Very Being.

As far as I am concerned, this is not hard to imagine, it is impossible to imagine, but I have experienced it.

Not only is God a Being of Pure Love but God is also a Trinity.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Baum, out of curiosity, are you a universalist? When you say you were chosen by God as a messenger, do you mean you possess special revelation apart from scripture?

If so, and if this revelation differs from scripture, how do you know the source you got it from was God? God would not contradict himself.

TO RAFAEL:

You wrote, " What you are claiming is called a "delusion of grandeur.", actually, I do not have a 'delusion of grandeur' what I have is an awesome responsibility, I did not ask to be a messenger but I have said, YES.

You also wrote, "Thinking you are god's messenger and actually being god's messenger are two different things", I totally agree, and I have never said that I think I am God's messenger and as a matter of fact, I didn't even mention some of the things that I speak of now quite freely for quite some time after they happened to me.

You also wrote, " I'm just hoping you don't harm anyone else under the delusion of your absolutes.", first off, it is your opinion that I am under some delusion and I can understand that because I tell you if I was God, I sure wouldn't have chosen me to be His messenger, but I am not God and He chooses who He chooses, that is why I take very seriously what God said in the bible about that, "Remember I [God] have chosen you, you haven't chosen Me".

Why should you or anybody else be worried, either God is real or He isn't, I have met God so I can attest to the fact that He is real but I can't prove it but time will tell.

Either God wins Total Victory ultimately and ALL OF HUMANITY will be in His Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth] or not.

I find it really sad that some of the people that know His Name seem to know nothing else about Him yet they say that they are speaking for Him.

There is no way that I could be thankful to the piece of garbage that some think that God Is, He is not the spiteful, revengeful, egotistical being that they present Him to be , He is a Being of Pure Love and He is a Trinity.

God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition in His Time.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TO JWS:

You wrote, "And a second point: to claim to know the ultimate truth is to claim to be God."

I would like to make two comments about this statement.

First, if it is directed to me, what I said was I met God and I have most definitely said that I am not God.

Second, Jesus didn't claim to know the ultimate truth, Jesus said, "I AM THE TRUTH", so He did claim to be God.

You also wrote, "From my perspective, religion or God can not be proven, only experienced.", actually I have experienced God, the whole Trinity, so God has proven to me that He is real.

I also believe that someone can have Faith in God which is believing that God is real but that is not knowing.

I find it somewhat amazing at how much some people read into what I write rather than read what I write.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

So Jesus told us to deny Lust and embrace Love...

Based on what I have read from Spong, I would say he agrees with that. Maybe I am missing something?

What are the consequences of people at ease with their sexual sin, for example (which Spong likes to glorify)? Matthew 5:27-30 (KJV)

27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
------------------
God is holy and righteous. He will not allow sin into his presence. If you find this amusing, you correspond to the biblical definition of fool.

SpongJohn:
Would you mind pointing out what exactly you feel is dangerous or false advertising in Spong's posting?

JWS: He's dangerous in the sense an successful ad agency for a brand of liquor, cigarettes or pornography is dangerous. He encourages people to become numb to the sins they commit. I don't think he should be "tried" any more than the ad agency. He's a Pied Piper, but those who follow him are also responsible because they have itching ears.

I have read many of the apologetics arguments and they all are worried about proving this or proving that. From my perspective, religion or God can not be proven, only experienced. As is clearly evidenced throughout this website, proof is in the eye of the beholder. Whatever 'proof' convinces you of something may not convince someone else. Just because you believe something is true does not make it true for someone else. Your viewpoint, whatever it may be, is a minority viewpoint. There is no majority. We, as a species, are wonderfully diverse.

I am also interested in why you say that Spong's message is dangerous. Dangerous to who and why? Should he be tried like Galileo? Shouldn't the "Truth", if it is indeed true, be able to stand up to the hard questions?

Rafael: "So if Spong had claimed prophetic revelation, that would be more convincing to you?"

Actually, that point is moot with Spong since he directly contradicts scripture. But if his modifications weren't so blatantly out ther AND he claimed to be a prophet and there were accompanying indicia (such as actual prophecies or signs like Elijah) I'd at least feel obligated to examine his stuff more thoroughly to see if it was compatible with scripture. As it is I'm a weak cessationist, so I'd be disinclined to take such claims at face value.

And the proofs I gave were not meant to be mere assertion. I was just giving brief summaries of Craig's standard presentation: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm (this is a Catholic site, but they have a few debates not on reasonablefaith.org)

JWS: "Process theology is different than liberal or post-modern thought. So I am confused why you are equating them."
I wasn't - I just thought that was where you were coming from with the emphasis on change and transformation. It's not change in itself that's the problem with Spong, it's that the changes he wants to implement are dangerous and evil. He's leading sheep astray to assuage his own conscience for becoming a heretic, and to sell books. He should be an honest atheist like Dan Barker or Robert M Price.

"And finally, I find it curious that you criticize Spong for not having evidence."
But most of his changes are merely reflections of his taste- examples: Penal Substitutionary Atonement = Divine Child Abuse (what evidence has science discovered that can "prove" this - mere taste on his part), miracles can't occur (but he doesn't prove that an omnipotent God couldn't do them, he just doesn't like a God that would), homosexuality is ok (but he's silent when it comes to bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia and incest, which could be justified by the same logic, so it's really a matter of arbitrary taste with him).

Process theology is different than liberal or post-modern thought. So I am confused why you are equating them. Plus you are trying to fit what little you know of my opinions into a stereotypical model. That is making assumptions (which 'miss the mark' btw)

Also, I don't recall stating that pluralism and agape-based were absolute. You are also making assumptions there.

I was mostly interested in the concept of change, and am fascinated (though probably not surprised) by the vehement distaste that many in this thread have for Spong's message of 'change'.

Having read Spong's book, I also am aware that he makes a point of saying that he does not know what the future of Christianity will look like. I dare-say, that Paul probably had no inkling of what would happen to his Church as it has evolved over the 2000 years it has been evolving. (Actually Paul seemed to think that Jesus would be back in his lifetime -- obviously that did not happen)

And finally, I find it curious that you criticize Spong for not having evidence.

Thomas Baum:
"Your version" is all the points on which you seem to disagree with other Christians, who therefore have other versions. What you are claiming is called a "delusion of grandeur." Thinking you are god's messenger and actually being god's messenger are two different things that you (and others throughout history, with whom you would probably not share a version of Christianity) appear to have trouble distinguishing. I'm just hoping you don't harm anyone else under the delusion of your absolutes.

SpongJohn:
Tobacco is a poor analogy. We can gain objective evidence for or against the idea that tobacco is bad for kids. Telling kids it's good in the absence of evidence is simple assertion.
So if Spong had claimed prophetic revelation, that would be more convincing to you?

JWS: "Many of you are arguing the details and missing the forest from the trees. Jesus initiated a RADICAL transformation of the 'Church' from law-focused Judiasm to a more open and pluralistic, agape-based theology.

Is there some reason that that transformation has stopped? Paul continued the transformation. He mixed in some Greek concepts as he built up the new Jesus-cult. There have been other reformers through history that have enabled us to glimpse 'God' with a clearer window -- Lutheranism, Calvanism, etc. I often here people refer to a 'Living' God. Not an old, dusty one. 'Living' is by definition change. It is growth. It is NOT stagnant."

JWS, let's stop and think for a sec. "Transformation" in and of itself is neutral. There can be both good and bad transformations. For instance, you seem to think being 'pluralistic' and 'agape based' should NOT change.
Why are you trying to turn it into an absolute virtue when it is clearly not?

I'd say that Spong's transformation is bad, because it is incorrect. To use to a medical analogy, it's as if a contingent of doctors paid for by the tobacco lobby tried to 'transform' the practice of medicine by encouraging kids to smoke, since medicine is always 'changing'. If we eliminate the possibility of certain transformations in medicine (such as casting runes) are we therefore exchanging 'Living, advancing medical knowledge' for 'old dusty medical knowledge'? It's not that simple.

So you need to base your case on why you think Spong is correct to throw out 2000 of theology and revelation and expect us to follow his bizarre ipse dixits without giving us one shred of evidence as to why his conception of the deity is correct (he hasn't claimed prophetic revelation, to my knowledge nor validated his claims in any objective way, as, say, Elijah had).

The religion you espouse seems to be Process Theology, Tikkun Olam stuff (google Alfred North Whitehead). But this is not at all the same as Christianity.

Liberals use this type of language a lot, but it seems they have not thought it through, and they just expect conservatives to immediately change their minds when they hear this sort of stuff. If I've missed anything please correct me.

Actually I though that 'religion' is a relationship between God and Man.

And a second point: to claim to know the ultimate truth is to claim to be God. Therefore one's version of the truth is in reality different than another's because we all view 'God' as such, though different perspectives and biases.

TO RAFAEL:

You wrote, "on what authority should anyone believe your version of Christianity over anyone else's?", I am not sure what you mean by 'my version of Christianity'?

Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship between God and man, whereas the Second Person of the Trinity became One of us, could this be what you mean by 'my version'?

Christianity also is 'Part of God's Plan' for ALL OF HUMANITY, could this also be part of 'my version'?

This relationship between God and man exists between God and ALL MEN, just because some don't know it, doesn't mean that it doesn't.

I have been chosen by God as a messenger, I guess you could say that is ' on what authority', of course the way that I would put it is, 'on Whose Authority'.

I am not asking anyone to believe or not believe me, I am just a messenger.

I am not here to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do, I am just here to tell the whole world that God wins Total Victory, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable.

We will all be judged, do we take personal responsibility for what we do now or later?

God knew that not all would take personal responsibility for their actions this side of breath, that is why He came up with His Plan even before creation.

I will also repeat: The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof; it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth] at the dawning of the seventh day.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

SpongJohn, assertion and poor logic aren't especially convincing.

1) What would an eternal universe look like, exactly? Are you asserting that time would necessarily be absent from it? I don't see the logic. If you're talking about the singularity that "started time," there is no bound on the number of times the universe expanded or collapsed. We could only have evidence of the most recent expansion, so your "timebound nature" is no proof of a "personal causer." And what exactly was the cause of your personal causer? Wouldn't that send your argument into an infinite loop, making the universe...eternal?

2) The anthropic principle ignores the fact that we are here to observe the physical constants that created conditions for our being able to observe them. The wrong constants, played out an infinite number of times, would be unobservable. This criticism has been made countless times by people smarter than me--I suggest you "try to keep up."

3) See humanism as a basis for moral behavior. As Chip explains above, all religion does is introduce a basis for moral relativism, rather than moral universalism.

4) The gullibility of Christian fanaticism shines through. If you think anything rules out mythological embellishment, you don't understand the nature of recorded history or the history of Christianity in particular very well. The only absurdity we're dealing with here is the insistence that supernatural forces are necessary to explain what happens in the material world. They aren't.

Phew! glad that's settled ;o)

Rafael: "In any case, finding one set of ideas more appealing than another doesn't make them "true." If the universe is in fact "mindless and purposeless"--and we have no reason to think otherwise--you're still going to have to find your own meaning in it. If you're particular choice is Christian fantasy, you're certainly welcome to it--but you haven't convinced me that your version of the fantasy is better than Spong's."

Go to reasonablefaith.org and listen to William Lane Craig's presentations. He takes a 4 step approach to demonstrate the truth of Christian claims:
1) Kalaam argument: the universe must have had an outside cause, since due to its timebound nature, the universe could not have existed eternally. The cause would have to be personal, since only a personal cause could choose to act in time.

2) Teleological: not with "bananas", peanut butter or ID, but proving that physical constants and initial distribution of matter and energy could not have arisen by chance.

3) Moral: the unbeliever may be aware of morality, and may live a moral life, but unless that morality is rooted in something outside the material universe, there is no basis to condemn any action as immoral. Morality becomes a matter of taste, like a favorite color. It becomes an evolutionary quirk we are free to disregard.

4) Historical: the early date of passages such as 1 Co 15:3-7 rule out mythological embellishments. All explanations attempting to explain the rise of early Christianity (such as the swoon theory, that the body was stolen, the wrong tomb, etc.) lead to absurdities.

Iconoclasm seems to bring out the 'best' in people. Though I must admit it is entertaining. But the problem with iconoclasm is that it puts everyone's defenses up and dialogue is more difficult.

Rev. Spong wrote a book on this subject of transforming the Church. He starts out with his usual iconoclasm, which I suppose is designed to make you think. But the best part of the book is the second half, where he addresses what he thinks is the core of Christianity. We all put different faces on our religion. Some are 'evangelicals', some are 'fundamentalist' (Spong is certainly not), some are 'progressive', some are 'traditionalist'. It is all details. Many of you are arguing the details and missing the forest from the trees. Jesus initiated a RADICAL transformation of the 'Church' from law-focused Judiasm to a more open and pluralistic, agape-based theology.

Is there some reason that that transformation has stopped? Paul continued the transformation. He mixed in some Greek concepts as he built up the new Jesus-cult. There have been other reformers through history that have enabled us to glimpse 'God' with a clearer window -- Lutheranism, Calvanism, etc. I often here people refer to a 'Living' God. Not an old, dusty one. 'Living' is by definition change. It is growth. It is NOT stagnant.

Spong is merely pointing out the obvious. Change is something that Jesus started. It is not our place to 'finish' it, but rather to 'continue ' it.

A church absent faith in the one true and living God is no more than a country club that's only open 2 days a week. That is what most so-called progressive churches have become and that is the very reason they are in general dying. People are fleeing them in droves because there is no 'there' there.

Thomas Baum:

With all due respect--because you seem like a polite enough fellow, despite spouting nonsense and repeatedly assuring people they will get their just rewards in the kingdom--on what authority should anyone believe your version of Christianity over anyone else's? It's so easy to assert that Spong is wrong and you are right. The only appropriate response to assertion is: prove it. Otherwise it's just your version of the fantasy.

TO JOHN SHELBY SPONG:

The title of your article "Church must change or die" is interesting.

Jesus said, "Simon, thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build MY CHURCH and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.", did He not? Emphasis mine but I wanted to point out that Jesus said it was HIS CHURCH not Peter's.

You may or may not be talking about religion and the various denominations and non-denominations but if you are talking about Jesus's Church which you may or may not know anything about, then you are wrong.

God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and Jesus's Church is Part of that Plan, and the Jews being the Chosen People are also Part of that Plan, God knows what He is doing and His Plan is for ALL OF HUMANITY to be with Him, the Trinity of Pure Love, in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

I repeat: The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

It is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

Take care, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Jesus said, "When the son of man comes, will he find faith?".

I wonder if He meant 'Faith in a God of Love' rather that the piece of garbage that some that call themselves 'christian' present God to be, do you wonder?

I wonder if He meant 'Faith in a God of Love' rather than faith in religion, faith in spirituality, faith in technology, faith in science, faith in the stock market, faith in the perfectability of man, faith in one or another form of government.

Take care, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Sunday, March 2, 2008

The Spirit of God says today there is a voice resounding and echoing into your corridors of your streets and into your homes and business places for God said today that I have seen the hurting and I am there to comfort them for God says you do not need to wait for a miracle, for I am coming today to rescue you! And give you a light that shall never go out.

God says I have looked upon the western side of this nation and say the fires are coming the fires are coming! But rest assured that this is so you will know that the Spirit is a consuming fire to cleanse the nation of the impurities and cleanse them so that they will shine for Me.

God says My voice will resound all over the nations and many great testimonies shall come to man and you will hear from the persecuted saints about how God worked through those who survived the pains of death and sorrow through the power of My loving compassion. India you are the first that is going to change the world for those who are being persecuted! For I will multiply the saints and believers there for a light for the nation!

A great sign of My heart will pour over this nation as I show you the eruption of My heart for you America and the island of Hawaii will show you the sign, says the Spirit of God.

http://jcudell.blogspot.com/

Anonymous, moral relativism is exemplified nowhere more than in religion as a basis for moral systems. The only valid basis for morality is empathy, and a simple understanding that everyone else's pain is the same as yours, and that everyone else's rights are as important as yours. Religion interjects a middleman between you and everyone else and creates a morality based in tribalism. Doing so creates a means of selectively promoting violence, bigotry, and all manner of tribal nastiness and allowing it to be considered "moral" in the name of religious and tribal fealty. That isn't morality. It's a subversion of it that overrules empathy by dehumanizing members of different tribes.

The rampant bigotry displayed towards homosexuals by Christian fundamentalists is a perfect example of that dynamic at work. In the name of "morality," millions of people have voted in favor of constitutional amendments to deny a group of people equal human and civil rights. If that isn't moral relativism, I don't know what is. Religions aren't moral systems. They're tribal systems masquerading as morality. Humanism as a basis for morality is far less corruptible.

SpongJohn:

Your thinking would benefit if you stepped outside your Christian frame of reference, even for a moment. There is a great deal we didn't understand about how the world works 2000 years ago. "Miracles" are what we call events when we don't have a material explanation for how they happened. Lightning and eclipses were once treated as the acts of gods, for example. We now know better.

I am not aware of Spong advocating murder or bestiality. He does, however, have a grasp of what modern science has taught us about the evolution of all living things, and of the farce--"intelligent design" as science--perpetrated by fanatical Christians who seek to discount our modern understanding of the world only where they feel it threatens their "truths."

Speed limits and historical dates are the information of mortal beings. They can be recorded and verified with evidence. There is no equivalency to one person saying "The mind of my god wants X" while another person says "No, the mind of that same god wants Y" or "The mind of this other god wants Z." All of these claims are based on assertion, not evidence. And if they were all based on communication from a supernatural being, that would be a very confused being. (I'm not sure what you're theology is, but it would seem unlikely to admit perfect communication between a perfect being and a mere mortal, despite what George Bush says).

I don't understand why Christians think there are two options, a morality based on Christian fantasy or a do what you please hedonism. Check out humanism sometime, you'd be surprised how rightfully people can act on principles that have nothing to do with the supernatural.

In any case, finding one set of ideas more appealing than another doesn't make them "true." If the universe is in fact "mindless and purposeless"--and we have no reason to think otherwise--you're still going to have to find your own meaning in it. If you're particular choice is Christian fantasy, you're certainly welcome to it--but you haven't convinced me that your version of the fantasy is better than Spong's, when at least he takes account of how our understanding of the world has advanced and does not feel threatened by it.

CHIP, the secularists and atheists cling to irrational positions to justify their moral relativism and intellectual sloth. It doesn't help their cause when they conflate ethical and scientific questions, as Spong does in his last paragraph. It's every bit as inane and immature as it sounds. Too bad such a large segment of the population is in denial against conscience and reason.

Mr. Spong's commentary seems eminently reasonable to me. He speaks the plain and simple truth. The orthodox cling to positions that the thinking world has quite simply outgrown and left behind and it is that inability to absorb and adapt to new information and knowledge that is dooming the modern church to irrelevance. It doesn't help their cause that when confronted by such obvious and self-evident truth all the believers can seem to come back with is "Just wait until dad gets home! Then you'll be in trouble!" It's every bit as infantile as it sounds. No wonder the fastest growing segment of the population is those who've left traditional religion behind.

John Shelby Spong: your belief or should I say unbelief is what is tearing the Church upside down with the ear tickling and pleasing of men instead of pleasing God messages. We are not unloving nor bigots. I agree wholeheartedly with GaryD as we will see the true and false converts on judgment day. It amazes me when so called false prophets (theologians) are always blaspheming and mocking God when they clearly want to be on both sides of the fence. Please stop.

Gideon:
"We are born with two ears and one mouth, so we should do twice as much listening as talking."

Physician heal thyself. Right after you state this you begin pontificating, rather than interacting with the opposing side. I *have* listened to the theologically liberal side and I've concluded it's wrong. Is this scenario even possible in your world?

When you say "broaden your horizons" do you mean try to force oneself to believe contradictory propositions? If not, then what? When liberals use this phrase, it's usually as a rhetorical device to justify moral relativism. Please let me know if you meant something different.

Rafael:
"And if you think that correctness of thought is best measured in terms of growth in the numbers"

Of course, no one said that it was. We're merely observing the connection between bad theology and the body of Christ. Please try and keep up.

"Loss of the orthodox from the Episcopal church says nothing about how valid Spong's thinking is."

Spong is like a witch doctor posing as an MD. When the corpses start piling up, it's legitimate to ask if this has anything to do with his innovative "methods".

"the practice of faith must reconcile itself with how knowledge about our world has advanced since Jesus' day."

This is a bit vague, what do you mean by this? If your referring to morality, murder and bestiality are still immoral, no matter how many biological facts we learn about people. If you're referring to the supernatural, how does accumulating facts about a system have any bearing on whether something outside the system can affect it? People have always known how the world normally works, which is why they were able to discern miracles in the first place, duh!

"Even if there were a god of some kind, it seems unlikely that you, a mere mortal whose beliefs have been shaped by your historic and cultural context, would know "the god that is.""

You, "a mere mortal whose beliefs have been shaped by your historic and cultural context", are capable of knowing the speed limit, or that the declaration of independence was signed in 1776. Are you saying an omnipotent God would be unable to clearly communicate with his creatures? Your statement seems a bit of a non-sequitur.

"That's why I'd prefer to hear a version of the Christian fantasy that at least progresses as our understanding of the world progresses."

How can you even define "progress" given your world view? You want us to exchange our values based on scripture for your arbitrary ones based on "whatever feels good at the moment, do it" given to you by a mindless, purposeless universe? No thanks. Look at the secularized Netherlands, land of pot and pedophilia. Is that your notion of progress? Just curious.

Moderate:
"Fundamentalists like yourself jump from one extreme to another and always retain the certainty that you had at the outset."

So, we should all always strive for uncertainty. Are you certain about that?

"Even as you move from a position that contradicts your previous one."

???

"You pretty nearly destroyed the diocese of New Jersey with your ideas."

What on earth are you talking about? I've never even been to DioNJ, honest! CANA seems to be growing, though (40% in the past year alone). Perhaps DioNJ needs to join an orthodox Anglican province as San Joaqin has done. What do you think?

Moderate:
Nicely conceived. I like how you destroyed him with your claim that he "jumped from one extreme to another" and decimated him further with your claim that his position "contradicts his previous one." Never mind the details, you really made your argument, and I hope he heeds your call to change, though I'm not sure it will be clear to him how. But the rest of us all understand.

Dear John Shelby,

Fundamentalists like yourself jump from one extreme to another and always retain the certainty that you had at the outset. Even as you move from a position that contradicts your previous one. You pretty nearly destroyed the diocese of New Jersey with your ideas. Perhaps it is you who need to change.

"Everybody's talking at me. I can't hear a word they're saying, Only the echoes of my mind." So goes the song, and so seemingly go these blogs.

We are born with two ears and one mouth, so we should do twice as much listening as talking.

Persons here are talking past one another. One simply can't capture any people, culture, society, or belief system into one easy catch-all phrase.

Catholics -- not Christians, ruled Europe for about three centuries and persecuted anyone who didn't swear fealty to the Roman Catholic Church, whether they were Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, or any other "heretics."

Christianity is all but extinguished by the World Church Organization, multi-media, and countless denominations, sects, and cults.

Some few here are trying to defend the true faith. Listen! Learn to discern and thereby broaden your horizons. This forum has the potential for understanding, but some individuals are using it simply to spout tirades and make personal attacks. Very childish.

GaryD:

The issue isn't all about you. The majority of your brethren want the laws of the land to reflect Christian dogma, regardless of what you might think. That's why I'd prefer to hear a version of the Christian fantasy that at least progresses as our understanding of the world progresses.

As for "purifying" the church, your goal of purity would presuppose your knowledge of what god "is." Others must have their own versions, which I gather conflict with yours. Conflicting fantasies in one big struggle over whose view of god is more righteous doesn't sound terribly Christ-like to me.

I say don't worry your mortal mind over it, let those "other agents" come, since it sounds like they'll be the only ones who know the truth anyway.

Again you have pegged me wrong. The last thing I want is a Christian theocracy. Such things in the past have proven to be as bad for the faithful as for the faithless.

What little God has chosen to reveal to me he has so chosen. My ultimate goal isn't to purify the world but to purify the church itself. The world can't be purified the Church can and if we of the Church will not do so then God will send other agents to do so and no one will care for the outcome of that be he Christian or Jew, Atheist or Agnostic Hindu or Buddhist.

Even if there were a god of some kind, it seems unlikely that you, a mere mortal whose beliefs have been shaped by your historic and cultural context, would know "the god that is." Given the fantasy of it all, I'd at least prefer to have your beliefs and practices, which you seem to feel should be used to govern all the rest of us, constrained by some oughts.

Sorry I think no such thing. I frankly believe that along with all the unbelievers about 60 to 70% of those sitting in church pews every Sunday morning will be quite surprised to find themselves standing with the goats come judgment day for all too many like Dr. Spong here worship not the God that is but the God they think ought to be.

You Christians are funny, if not downright archaic. All Spong seems to be saying is that the practice of faith must reconcile itself with how knowledge about our world has advanced since Jesus' day. I bet you don't reject modern understanding in most parts of your life, only in the places you seem to feel something sacred is threatened. Apparently, he doesn't feel so threatened, and continues to develop his faith in relationship to what we know about the natural world. This hardly constitutes a fear and loathing of Christianity, just a rejection of irrationality.

And if you think that correctness of thought is best measured in terms of growth in the numbers of disciples, then you should probably join a megachurch, or better yet drop your religion altogether (and watch the Dolphins guilt-free)--"no religion" appears to be the fastest growing group in terms of absolute numbers. Loss of the orthodox from the Episcopal church says nothing about how valid Spong's thinking is.

KOREMORI: Amen! This old fraud caused church attendance to decline by 40% in his diocese during his term as bishop in the Episcopal church. The current leadership of the Episcopal Church has largely absorbed his teaching (head Episcopalian, Katharine Jefferts-Schori invited him to her diocese to give lectures). And what is the result? The orthodox are now fleeing for the hills. The Episcopal Church has gone from 2.5 million members just a few decades ago to currently less than 800000 members ASA. Quite an accomplishment for one man, eh Mr. Spong?

This man still bewilders me. The post reveals his deep hatred and loathing of Christianity. Yet he persisted for decades passing himself off as a Christian Bishop. Why for goodness' sake?

It's not that Christianity must "change or die". It is Spong who must repent or perish.

Mr Spong, you have run the Episcopalian church straight into the ground.

Since you have no discernible Christian faith, why should I get up early Sunday morning to hear anything you have to say ? Why should I part with my hard earned money to afford you a living ? Your meaningless, ineffectual kind of "God", Mr Spong, isn't worth missing a Miami Dolphins game for.

That is why it is your kind of "faith" that is quite rightfully dying.

Dude: What's your version of "the joke" that I didn't get?

Dude: What's your version of "the joke"?

i meant rafael!!! dang!

Kerusso:

Either you did not get the joke or I didn't.

Kerusso:

You question whether Spong is educated, but show just how educated you are by quoting Canyon Shearer as your authority on evolution? While Shearer's ignorance is considerable, yours in relying on his dopey arguments is simply astounding.

Dear exBishop Spong,

Thank you for once again proving you are neither a Christian nor educated.

Concerning part of your religion, please see below:

Proof of Evolution
C. Shearer (c) Feb 2008

Proponents of the religion of evolution have inadvertently proved evolution with their transition to Scaredy Cats (felicae scaredicae). Although there is no discernable external difference between a true scientist and these pseudoscientific scaredy cats, the inward differences are enormous.

A scientist looks at evidence and forms a hypothesis, then produces a study to test the hypothesis. If a hypothesis cannot be proven, it is determined to be false.

A scaredy cat forms a conclusion, then desperately searches for corroborating evidence and becomes violent when scientists explain that what they are doing makes them religious fanatics instead of scientists.

It is unclear at this point if this is the ancestor of the common house cat, that the scaredy cat is the long-lost missing link between homo evolutionus and our feline friends. Further study is necessary to determine if evolutionists have genetic traits which may someday, in a million years or so, produce improved night vision, and whether or not evolutionists have a higher propensity for rodents or birds. Another area to be studied is whether or not evolutionists enjoy being scratched behind the ears.

It is clear, at this point, that the scaredy cat is ill-equipped to survive in its scientific environment. Studies show that this new species would be more suited to worship their gods, Father Time and Random Chance, in the intellectual vacuums of liberal colleges.

The natural enemies of felicae scaredicae are the domesticated canine, the scientifically minded human being, and the Righteous Judge of the Universe.

Whether you choose to believe evolution or not, you have to agree that it is separated from science by a vast margine. You could not start from a blank slate and build a worldview with the "evidence" for evolution. You have to start with the presupposition, 'Evolution occurs' and then you can pretend evidence fits the model.

When you go to the doctor, would you rather he said, "Welcome to my office, you have appendicitis, now let me examine you and find supporting facts for my guess." Or would you rather he examine you then make his diagnosis?

Just as a building proves a builder and a painting proves a painter, creation proves a Creator. Natural laws prove order, the conscience proves absolutes in morality