Pete

Just a point to Dan. When one reads Spong you should note that he does not declare that the bible is without worth. He just asks how can the literal perception of the bible be seen as relevant to the twenty first century mind. People (IMO) question things at a greater depth nowadays and do not take the attitude that the church always knows best about everything. It is not that the bible is not relevant but the inerrancy of the bible is being questioned. I am sure God will speak to the hearts of people, bible or no bible as God did for many years before it, and the question for me is, does the bible inspire me with a sense of God being present and have meaning for me or does its whole meaning die with my belief that its literal interpretation is questionable. I would say it is still relevant despite its questionable portrayal of events and interpretation. Please note that I am not turning around and saying I do not believe that God is relevant or that I am no longer a Christian. The reason for this is I still see much relevancy in the faith and I am sure Spong does. However that view of relevancy may differ from your view.

Dan I have mentioned time and time again that I do not see the bible in the same light as you. Your take on the faith believes that the bible being without error is crucial but that is not how most liberals see it. The issue for me is can I learn from things that are said even though I do not believe they are necessarily God's word's then I would say yes. Sure anyone from your perspective would have big problems with what you are accusing Spong of but that is your problem and not mine. I am not the one demanding the bible is with out error in the first place. The church has been known to destroy libraries of books throughout Europe and Asia minor in the past and many believe St. Cyril destroy most of the early originals in the fire of Alexandria. There has also been much repression of books by the church and lets not forget that they tried to destroy all of Tyndale's bibles at the same time as burning and garrotting him. Do you think that body was without any motive to corrupt the bible. The same body that tried to repress science too.

I thought I had answered you when I said that I believe the bible is written by people about their personal (rightly or wrongly) perceptions of God, rather than it being a book dictated by God. I therefore do not believe it is the word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16 is nothing but a forgery for me and it is debatable (IMO) as to what scripture the author was referring to, being as both the Jews and the Christians did not assert that anything was scripture until afterwards and in the case of Christians we are talking about much later. Not sure what else your after. I personally do not see any evidence that any of the NT writers ever met Jesus. I know that some assert this but where is the tangible evidence. There is only the statement of belief by some that it was written by actual people who met Jesus but little else and as I do not trust the church to tell the truth I guess that debate goes no where for me. I also believe Paul differed from Jesus. Jesus talked about the kingdom of God within and that which is to come. Paul talked about dying to sin and flesh, and being washed by the blood of Jesus. There are other differences too. See:- http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/salvation-1.html I am often met by conservatives that say they do not see any such issues, but that only leaves me trusting conservatives explanations even less. For me, I believe Paul was gay and being Jewish loathed himself for being so. Hence, his message dwelling so much on death to the flesh. He was aware that according to Jewish law he would be stoned for being gay and he therefore felt very awkward being a person professing Jewish ideologies, all be it, in a differing viewpoint. So sure he looked for every way he could be seen as acceptable to his audience.

I think I have said many times that I believe the bible is written by people writing about God rather than writing words dictated to them from God. As Spong says on the back of the cover:- "How can the bible be used with integrity by men and women of faith? How can it be lifted out of prejudices and cultural biases of bygone eras? How can it be a source of life to the twentieth and twenty-first century generations? If it continues to be viewed literally, the bible in my opinion, is doomed to be cast aside as both dated and irrelevant" (Spong (1991), Rescuing the bible from fundamentalism, Harper SanFranscico.) Ask yourself would you have so many people challenging the literal interpretation in the 1950-60 as we do today. I suspect not. I believe Billy Graham got it easy but I do not believe it will be so for others who try the same tact. Also note that even Spong, despite his criticism of the literal view of the bible does not want the bible to become irrelevant.

There is much debate about the Pastoral Epistles. Me, I think they are forgeries. As most liberals believe, I believe they are later writings, written after Paul's death. http://en.wikipedia....storal_epistles and http://www.religious...rg/chr_ntb3.htm either way if we are talking about Spong's book I believe he has given his thoughts on Paul:- "Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal Bishop of Newark) "Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul – a vast difference." (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)"

So you would disagree with Origen then. It is an odd thing that he should make such comments if the original scripts were being preserved. From my previous posts:- " The third century church father Origen wrote: "The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please."" From :- http://www.religious...rg/morgan01.htm

I agree. Just because I challenge one way of using the bible (i.e. the perception it is totally inerrant and factual) does not mean that I believe it is completely worthless. I most definitely do not (IMO) and when I said there was Gold and truths in the bible, I was in no way not meaning just that.

There is always that interesting quote from Origin's writings :- " The third century church father Origen wrote: "The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please."" From :- http://www.religioustolerance.org/morgan01.htm The link page is very interesting in my opinion.

Actually Dan, liberalism is a reaction against those who assert that the five fundamentals are hard facts and are beyond debate. There is a big difference (IMO) in saying that truths can be found in the bible and saying its all true because its all God spoken and any discrepancies found are due to misunderstanding or problems with translation. I do not say that the whole bible cannot be true but I do say that the fundamentalists interpretation and assertions are flawed. I just seek God's help in my understanding rather than accepting the bible on face value. I do believe that the bible was written about God by man and therefore carries with it flaws rather than asserting it is all true and all from God and written as dictated. I also feel the far right republican so called Christian right has done so much damage to the reputation of the Christian movement as whole and most flack that I receive about my beliefs seems to be because others mistakenly believe I and others think as they do. I am unable to give assertion of the five fundamentals and others like the belief that Moses wrote the first books of the Old testament and it is that reason that I am a liberal. See:- http://en.wikipedia....st_Christianity and "American Protestants Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the late 19th century.[6][7] It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations around 1910-1920.[6][7] The movement's purpose was to reaffirm older beliefs of Protestant Christianity and zealously defend them against the challenges of liberal theology,higher criticism, Darwinism, and other movements which it regarded as harmful to Christianity.[6][7] The term "fundamentalism" has its roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) which defined those things that were fundamental to Christian belief. The term was also used to describe "The Fundamentals", a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by Milton and Lyman Stewart[6][7] This series of essays came to be representative of the "Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy"which appeared late in the 19th century within the Protestant churches of the United States, and continued in earnest through the1920s. The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs canbe traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":[8] The inspiration of the Bible by theHoly Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this. The virgin birth of Christ. The belief that Christ's deathwas the atonement for sin. The bodily resurrection of Christ. The historical reality of Christ's miracles. By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists." In practice, the first point was thefocus of most of the controversy. It is important to distinguish between"Fundamentalism" as the name of a militant style and"fundamentalism" as a theology. Evangelical groups typically agree on the theology "fundamentals" as expressed in The Fundamentals, but often are willing to participate in events with religious groups who do not hold to the essential doctrines.Fundamentalist groups generally refuse to participate in events with any such groups who don't hold to the essential doctrines." http://en.wikipedia..../Fundamentalism

For me trying to tease out meaning is the key to my view of scripture. Take for instance the story of the Women found in adultery and the response those without sin cast the first stone, does it matter whether Jesus actually said it, the church made it up, that it is not in the original text, or that it was just an addition, in my view no. I still believe the story is within the spirit of God, whether or not it was true. Where I start to differ is when questionable text is not being used to teach in a spiritual sense but is being used to control and assert one opinion above all other. Cool has talked about a disintegration of the faith but I have to disagree, as the Spirit and voice within each of our hearts is stronger than just basing all on a given text (IMO) being true or not. There is gold in many passages, much that speaks to heart, and debates as to whether a text is accurate, or true come a poor second (IMO) but they become necessary when dogma takes over instead of spiritual growth.

I agree Brother Sky. We are being asked to accept a given text (the bible) just as its given and not to doubt it or to question it. Something that prevents reason in my view.

The reason that I asked if you had read the book was that you have only mentioned page 10 in you posts and I would of thought you may of referenced more than just that. I know your criticism seems strong to Spong and I can understand that because he is juxtaposed to much that you believe in but I do not see much that reflects the substance to your objection to him. If that substance is based on just quoting biblical passages then I believe we are back in to the area of the unproven and opinion and the result is (IMO) just your belief verses his. I would argue that just because you do not like him does not make him without credibility even as my disagreement with you takes away either of our credibility. An argument that I would give to you is does it sound credible that a God who has enacted destruction and affliction on humanity and threatens all who do not comply with a single belief to eternal suffering sound like a God who really loves all and would be prepared to die in person to save all from his own actions.

Actually Cool I think you celebrating a sense of righteousness over Spong that I do not think is founded. I know for a fact in the UK there has been a growing rift between conservative and Liberal views in the Anglican church. They had a split over women ministers and fear another over women Bishops. They are also finding it hard to discuss things like practising gay ministers because there is such a division and the church is fearful that this time the church will be badly damaged by it. I am surprised by the number of churches of the Anglican churches that have declared themselves liberal in recent years and have broken away from fundamentalist views. So to say that Spong is somehow isolated and others do not agree with him or that he would hoisted out of the church I believe is just not credible. I also note your use of the word "credible" as if your view is the only one that counts. I have to say it is not and I do not find your views very credible (IMO). Sure you have done trainings but as I say one can walk a long way down the wrong road and having done trainings with a particular bias is not any more a justification that your any the more right in my view. You say you have attended differing churches but just a scan tells me that there is not a wide variation between each of their out looks and are mostly centred around Elim type churches and especially "Assemblies of God". It seems from your list you do not have a wide experience of other churches. P.S. Have you read Spong's book?

I cannot speak for Spong. He (IMO) wrote a book that re-addresses the assertions of fundamentalism and allows for each person to make their own mind up. Something I am personally grateful for. It has allowed me to recognise that fundamentalism does not solely own the label Christianity and there has always been other views. If fundamentalism was the only Christianity then I would have left long ago. It just does not work for me but I guess for you it does.

I recognise the dilemma for you Cool but one of the reasons I would not get into debates about being saved or not saved is because I do not recognise the concept in the fist place. Do not get me wrong I do personally recognise the kingdom of God within and that which I believe is to come and I believe in Jesus (although we many differ about what) but I just do not accept the Paulian concept of the get out of the get out of jail card. I feel such debates play into the hands of fundamentalism i.e. unless one does something or complies with what we say you will not be saved and something very drastic will happen to you in the next life. Nothing of which either of us can prove and seems to play on the venerable who cannot cope with the perception of not knowing all (IMO). I just trust God that all will be as God wants in the end and that God is more understanding than mankind,s view of God. Sure I cannot prove that either but I can cope with not knowing all and just trusting God. I do not believe in hell and I do not believe in the devil, and so what would such debates give me. I do believe in God but I do not swallow all that is written about God whether in supposed scripture or not. Such debates in my opinion is a bit like asking an elephant to change a light bulb. It creates more mess than results.

My view of the Old Testament (and I say Old testament as the Torah and the Old testament differ in my view). There was debate even among the Jews as to how one sees scripture. Scribes who favoured the written tradition and Pharisees the spoken traditional heritage. I do not argue that the ancient Jews were all bad or that all is the truth in the sense that because it's suggested that it is written in scripture it must be all fact. The Old testament is for me a history of a formation of a nation. I know of few nations that were born without bloodshed or have not placed their own spin on historic events. It is not for me to say all that was done was to the good even as a child is born in the pain of its mother so to a nation is often born in trials. For me the lesson is in the story. Just as the story of Jephthah's daughter seems brutal and may or may not of been a real event, it tells the tale of needing and the trying to be respectful and honest with God. Just as Deuteronomy 23:21-23 talks about the need to follow through with promises to God it also talks about the need to take care what you promise in God's name. As Matthew places the viewpoint that we should not swear by God or anything else (Matthew 5:36) we need to be humble and trusting in God rather than bargaining. The lesson (IMO) is spoken to the heart.The lesson is not in the view that all were real events (we do not know) or that the Jews were wonderful people throughout their history but in the morals that they expressed. I would go with the view of looking at the whole but not necessarily in the view of looking at the whole as undeniable facts but in the view that there is a lesson to be taught by the whole. I still hold to the view that I am a Christian in spite of my doubts and not because I have none. That ability is taken from being able to learn from the whole as it reveals itself to me rather than the view I know the only truth around and all is as scripture portrays. I am convinced that the Jews defended themselves both aggressively and defensively, for good and bad reasons, and attempted to justify all through their writings as most nations in the past but for me that is not the point. I do not believe God favoured any nation but that is not the same as not being able to see the hand of God in all nations despite mankind. Likewise the value for me of scripture is no tin it all being the truth but that there is truth within it. Not in the assertion of scripture as fact but by it and other means of the conveyance of the voice of God to the hearts of a person. Hence, this is where we differ when we argue over subjects like the bible and homosexuality. The abomination for me is not in a person beinga practising homosexual but in the abuse (either heterio or homo) of another person held in the love of God. Scripture is wrong (IMO) when it is said to say homosexuality is a sin. Yet, the challenge of these comments within scripture does challenge a person to ask what meaning they have and that lesson I do not believe is taking all at face value but in the mulling it over and allowing the voice of God to speak and not the presuming we know something just on the written viewpoint of another who lived before us. For I believe strongly that God corrects and speaks today as I believe God did in the past. The question for me is are we listening and not just taking the whole on face value and can we see beyond the word of text.

It also seems although the giving of children to fire was to the Ammonites God Molech, (a belief in giving ones children to their God via the use of fie), it also needs noting that they were not the only ones. See:- http://www.jewishenc...id=718&letter=M It also has to be noted that Solomon built a temple to Molech. 1 Kings 11:7 (King James Version) 7Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. I also note that there was no point in Leviticus 18:21 mentioning this as forbidden if it was not something that the Jewish people were at risk of doing too. Like I say, the Jewish people of the time were just as barbaric as those they killed (IMO). Although I note we owe so much to the Jews there seems little point in my opinion of pretending that they were at the time all holy Joes against a mass of other foreign wicked people.

<br /><br /><br />Dan, I gave you the verses. I pointed out that the only vow that was made was to sacrifice the first thing by fire that came to greet the father. There was no other vow to be carried out. Sure she was burned as a virgin. Not that I am sure made much diffence to her.

That and there is that wonderful verse in Matt 5:- 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. So I guess Fawzo we should get some stones and build a large fire and start killing just so we can find a higher place in heaven. I know you will not and neither will I, so I will see you in the lower ranks of heaven.

I would be equally opposed to the Jewish laws too as I see them as equally barbaric. Yet, being opposed is not the same thing as wanting to wipe the people out. So no I doubt I would have joined you in mass killings. I have found that I believe you are being deliberately blind on this topic. See:- what the bible says about it. Deuteronomy 23:21-23 21"(A)When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay to pay it, for it would be sin in you, and the LORD your God will surely require it of you. 22"However, if you refrain from vowing, it would not be sin in you. 23"You shall be careful to perform what goes out from your lips, just as you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God, what you have promised. Judges 11 29Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon. 30And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, 31Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. 32So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands. 33And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel. 34And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. 35And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back. 36And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; for as much as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon. 37And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows. 38And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. 39And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel, NB// There was no vow that she would know no man. There was only a vow to burn her. Even if there was then it still shows a barbaric people (IMO) who would destroy their daughters happiness for the sake of her fathers blood lust. They perish because of another barbarism rather than it being God's actions. I mean if God wants to remove a people do you think he needs the help of man.

Cool the point of the quoted website is not the issue but the references that he made are relevant to Dan's comment about the declared wickedness of the Canaanites. It shows to me that they were no worse than ancient Jews. I mean when I read that every living thing has to be killed in a city or the stoning and burning of people then I think of the barbarity of it all. As for these cruel laws preparing way towards Jesus the expression of love (IMO) coming then I just do not believe it. I also note that Jesus had according to the NT had difficulties with it or he would of recommended the stoning of the women in adultery.

I would say he has a point. Sure he was wrong to say that Christians are asked to kill people but some Christians do think that these laws are God given and perfect. Which is a viewpoint I do not share. This conversation related to Dan's comment about the barbarity of the Canaanites. My comment was to show that they are not the only ones who show barbarity (IMO). It would be an interesting poll for the forum as to how people felt about such laws that show intolerance to other faiths and freedom of thought and whether people thought that they held the higher moral ground over the Canaanites or that they were possibly as bad as each other.

Cool if you cannot see it then whats the point. Open it up an see what others think. Ask if you think these rulings gives one the moral upper ground. Lets put it to the vote?

Yes they were so much more tolerant than those they killed. "Kill those who are not Christian or Jewish: You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20 Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10 Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16 Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7 Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13 Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20 Any city that doesn't receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11 Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don't believe in him. Jude 5" From:- http://www.evilbible...Intolerance.htm I am sorry Dan but I struggle with your views on justice.

I guess it was quick of me to pass judgment. I have read about a number of prophets and others who proclaim this or that. I remember Brother Stair on the radio insisting the world was to end in the year 2000. We are still here. However, I wonder what would happen if the likes of John the Baptist was around to day. Do you have any qualifications? No! Do you have any formal training? No! What papers have you written? None! Do you belong to a credible church or religious body? No! Do you have a regular congregation? No! Who ordained you? God! and what written proof do you have for this? None! On what scripture can you base your message on that your teachings apply to the immediate future ? None? I see you have a wild sort of life style. Do you think that makes you credible to the religious establishment? No! I see you baptize people in water for the forgiveness of sin. Can sin be washed away by just water? No! I hear you want people to repent but how can you prove that your way is right? I cannot! So you just have a belief? Yes! Mmmm! A strange sort of bloke.