Post-theistic Christianity "Other view"

[YNOT]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Nice to meet you, Tony.

I've not read Spong's books, but I have read some of his articles online, and certainly they are stimulating.

The concern I have - which I presume a lot of his critics have - is that once you start over-turning the core traditions of a particular faith, you can be seen to be effectively invalidating it.

In which case, why hold on to claiming an association with a particular faith if you reject it's roots?

I've just remembered how Spong demonstrates how the synoptic gospels, as they were written chronologically, paint a picture of the divinity of Jesus that becomes more and more theistic. What he is suggesting is that a return to the roots of Christianity requires seeing Jesus as less a God and more of a God-presence.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by YNOT

right back at ya'!

accepted.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by YNOT

I agree that this thread could be uncomfortable to many people. It is wise that we proceed cautiously. I think that this forum is a wonderful way to generate an ecclesia for the future that speaks to Christian and Non-Christian alike. I do hope that others do not mistake my enthusiasm for a re-interpretation of Christianity as a condemnation of the views of others.

What does v/r mean?

Peace and loving-kindness,
Y

There is no way to generate an "ecclesia", based upon CR forums. This is a discussion board (lol), not a pulpit. No "following" will begin here. Are you sure that is what you meant?

v/r

Q

[China Cat Sunflower]

I've read most of Spong's books and I like what he's saying, but I have the nagging feeling that he's just peeing in the wind. I'm not sure Christianity can scrape off the two thousand years of theistic patina and still have any kind of institution left.

The problem for me is trying to find a way to embrace Christ without having to compartmentalize my thoughts. I don't want two thought worlds: a spiritual one where the miraculous can happen, and a mundane one where it can't. Does that make any sense? I know that virgins don't conceive, people don't die and then come back to life, the sun can't stand still, mental illness doesn't come from evil spirits. I'm pretty sure that the gospels don't present history, and I know the OT doesn't either. I know that we are evolving as a species rather than devolving from some edenic state.

I don't want to construct special theories to rationalize things that aren't rational. If I'm going to be able to embrace my Christianity it's going to have to be in a way where there is one world that's both scientifically and spiritually viable. I'm experimenting, but I'm not at all convinced it's even possible...especially as a "religion".

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I've read most of Spong's books and I like what he's saying, but I have the nagging feeling that he's just peeing in the wind. I'm not sure Christianity can scrape off the two thousand years of theistic patina and still have any kind of institution left.

The problem for me is trying to find a way to embrace Christ without having to compartmentalize my thoughts. I don't want two thought worlds: a spiritual one where the miraculous can happen, and a mundane one where it can't. Does that make any sense? I know that virgins don't conceive, people don't die and then come back to life, the sun can't stand still, mental illness doesn't come from evil spirits. I'm pretty sure that the gospels don't present history, and I know the OT doesn't either. I know that we are evolving as a species rather than devolving from some edenic state.

I don't want to construct special theories to rationalize things that aren't rational. If I'm going to be able to embrace my Christianity it's going to have to be in a way where there is one world that's both scientifically and spiritually viable. I'm experimenting, but I'm not at all convinced it's even possible...especially as a "religion".

Chris

Well, that is a rather interesting way of putting things...

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Well, that is a rather interesting way of putting things...

It seems that the "old time religion" just gets more and more incompatible with the reality of our modern life. It's a beautiful anachronism to be sure, but how meaningful can that anachronism be? Still, perhaps religion itself as an institution is becoming an anachronism. Maybe nationalism has become the real religion, of which religion in the traditional sense is but a component. That's how it seems during this current dark age in the U.S..

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

It seems that the "old time religion" just gets more and more incompatible with the reality of our modern life. It's a beautiful anachronism to be sure, but how meaningful can that anachronism be? Still, perhaps religion itself as an institution is becoming an anachronism. Maybe nationalism has become the real religion, of which religion in the traditional sense is but a component. That's how it seems during this current dark age in the U.S..

Chris

Then again, I can start up a 1917 Ford with a twist of a handle...kind of hard to do the same with a 2006, model Chevy with a fried onboard computer...

so much for old time religion...eh?

I call it as I see it...don't you?

Q

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

It seems that the "old time religion" just gets more and more incompatible with the reality of our modern life. It's a beautiful anachronism to be sure, but how meaningful can that anachronism be? Still, perhaps religion itself as an institution is becoming an anachronism. Maybe nationalism has become the real religion, of which religion in the traditional sense is but a component. That's how it seems during this current dark age in the U.S..

Chris

Come on Chris, why not tell us how you really feel... . Sorry, just a little joking.

Seriously, I don't know what this old time religion that you are talking about is. I don't see it as an anachronism, I see it as a living faith, vital and relevant to my daily life. My daily life as a wife, mother, friend, and scientist (because that is my profession, or it twere bk) and citizen. If you are concerned with teasing apart the literal-factual from the sacred in the Bible, well, you are just barking up the wrong tree, IMO.

Nationalism? Ha! Nationalism is what the Church defies! Maybe religion gets highjacked to the service of state, but the Church is not concerned with any of the things 'national.' It's concerned with the Kingdom of God, a state of the heart, not the nation. Nationalism itself is an ideology for some. Not a great one, IMO.

It may be dark, we may be Rome. But there is always darkness and there is always a Rome. But God is the light and we can choose to live in the light at any time, regardless of what is going on around us.

lunamoth

[China Cat Sunflower]

Well look, I'm happy for you both. If it's working for you that's great!

I just see empty forms. It looks like a big game of dress-up to me. All the spiffy robes and funky hats; all the form prayers and ancient creeds; all hinting at something arcane and possibly profound...I just can't do it. And are you sure your religion isn't a component of some insidious nationalistic control mechanism that keeps you contained intellectually and subservient to authority? I'm not saying, just asking...

Chris

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Well look, I'm happy for you both. If it's working for you that's great!

I just see empty forms. It looks like a big game of dress-up to me. All the spiffy robes and funky hats; all the form prayers and ancient creeds; all hinting at something arcane and possibly profound...I just can't do it. And are you sure your religion isn't a component of some insidious nationalistic control mechanism that keeps you contained intellectually and subservient to authority? I'm not saying, just asking...

Chris

As I said Chris, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel... .

If you just see empty forms then you are right, that's all that there is there for you.

But I am surprised at your conclusion that religion is a plot to make us subservient to authority. Christ's message and method was very subversive of authority, read Tolstoy, think Gandhi.

We've had threads about this before, the nuanced differences between faith, religion, church and Church.

Religions can be highjacked (and have been and are). Church organizations can be highjacked (and have been and are). But the Church can not.

luna, who was going to go to bed early for a change

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

-

The problem for me is trying to find a way to embrace Christ without having to compartmentalize my thoughts. I don't want two thought worlds: a spiritual one where the miraculous can happen, and a mundane one where it can't. Does that make any sense? I know that virgins don't conceive, people don't die and then come back to life, the sun can't stand still, mental illness doesn't come from evil spirits. I'm pretty sure that the gospels don't present history, and I know the OT doesn't either. I know that we are evolving as a species rather than devolving from some edenic state.

I don't want to construct special theories to rationalize things that aren't rational. If I'm going to be able to embrace my Christianity it's going to have to be in a way where there is one world that's both scientifically and spiritually viable. I'm experimenting, but I'm not at all convinced it's even possible...especially as a "religion".

Chris

Hi Chris, a last thought and then I really am off to bed. Why do you feel you must choose between the two extremes of a literal-factual understanding of the Bible (which I agree defies logic) and a 'special theory' with lots of doors out for your intellect while accepting (some things?) about Christianity? I'm not saying it's going to do anything for you, but perhaps you might try reading Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity. I don't agree with everything he says, but I found it a helpful book when I was re-embracing Christianity.



luna

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Well look, I'm happy for you both. If it's working for you that's great!

I just see empty forms. It looks like a big game of dress-up to me. All the spiffy robes and funky hats; all the form prayers and ancient creeds; all hinting at something arcane and possibly profound...I just can't do it. And are you sure your religion isn't a component of some insidious nationalistic control mechanism that keeps you contained intellectually and subservient to authority? I'm not saying, just asking...

Chris

i see some dogmatic religions that way with a political agenda. history shows that to be true. we are not that far apart on some of this.

[wil]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

... Why do you feel you must choose between the two extremes of a literal-factual understanding of the Bible (which I agree defies logic) and a 'special theory' with lots of doors out for your intellect while accepting (some things?) about Christianity? ...

The layers of understanding the bible provides are limitless. As I see it there is a litteral and historical basis and interpretation, as well as emotional, metaphysical, political, allegorical.... And all has value depending on the conditions and situations and upbringing of the person reading it...very much a group of living books which will have value for the ages...

Just like the way religions formed in ways that the peoples of that area were able to accept the thought, it resonated with that group and took hold...our various denominations, traditions, pomp and circumstance...it resonates with the group that attends that church...And all has value depending on the conditions and situations and upbringing of the persons attending... There is comfort in the rites for those that embrace them, there is meaning beyond what is scene, neurons are jumping with memories of past lessons, it prepares the space (in our mind) to be ready to receive the message (from spirit and/or the pulpit).

Everyone is where they need to be...there is no holier than thou...my religion's better than your religion...it is what we are ready for, it is what takes us up the path at this juncture in our lives... we have to respect that. Some need, crave, enjoy ritual...others don't. Seems to me thou we all have our rituals...we just call them different things...and don't see it as ritual...but any way it takes to prepare the ground, and open the curtains to let in the light is alright with me.

Do I believe as all do...uh, duh...no. Do I believe that 70% of christians take the bible 100% literally and think it is 100% accurate historic fact, no. But do I accept that that is possible and valuable, yes. And do I believe that 70% of christians would say at times that I am off my rocker...yes....but that's alright with me!

[YNOT]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

There is no way to generate an "ecclesia", based upon CR forums. This is a discussion board (lol), not a pulpit. No "following" will begin here. Are you sure that is what you meant?

v/r

Q

The translation of the Greek "ecclesia" is "to be called out". I see this as a call to transcend our limited humanity and become "divine" like Jesus. I don't see Jesus as God but as a manifestation of the presence of God. To me at least, God is not a being but being itself. God does not love us, God IS love. God does not create life, God IS life.

Anyway, we can all follow "God" in our own way. Via Jesus, Buddha, Lao-Tze, Mohammed, Zoroaster it doesn't matter. The Church is the body of Christ which is nothing more than a community of believers. For some, being a believer means believing in the Bible's historicity, accepting miracles, and the like. For me, being a believer means living life to the fullest, loving wastefully and (I know it sounds corny) being all that I can be.

[YNOT]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I've read most of Spong's books and I like what he's saying, but I have the nagging feeling that he's just peeing in the wind. I'm not sure Christianity can scrape off the two thousand years of theistic patina and still have any kind of institution left.

The problem for me is trying to find a way to embrace Christ without having to compartmentalize my thoughts. I don't want two thought worlds: a spiritual one where the miraculous can happen, and a mundane one where it can't. Does that make any sense? I know that virgins don't conceive, people don't die and then come back to life, the sun can't stand still, mental illness doesn't come from evil spirits. I'm pretty sure that the gospels don't present history, and I know the OT doesn't either. I know that we are evolving as a species rather than devolving from some edenic state.

I don't want to construct special theories to rationalize things that aren't rational. If I'm going to be able to embrace my Christianity it's going to have to be in a way where there is one world that's both scientifically and spiritually viable. I'm experimenting, but I'm not at all convinced it's even possible...especially as a "religion".

Chris

Hi Chris,

I think that Spong is saying that Christianity MUST take off its theistic, supernatural cloak or otherwise it will drown from being weighed down in postmodern waters. He is very adamant, and he makes a convincing case, that Christianity will die if it doesn't change. How it should change is certainly up for grabs, but change it must.

Nice meeting you.
v/r...(I hope you don't mind if I use that Q)
Tony