Pete

I recognise this as a red herring but as for God's vengeance upon New York you do not have to be a prophet. I think he has just been watching the discovery channel. It seems that New York sites is at the other end of a potential Mega Tsunami. If the worst happens and there is a large drop of land into the ocean from La Palma in the Canary Islands (Just off Africa) then it has the potential of creating a wave 300miles thick, a mile high, and travelling at 700miles an hour and could wash away New York and the eastern seaboard of the USA. I just think Allan Cronshaw is just jumping on the band wagon and trying to make a name for himself. It is thought by many scientists that the land will drop into the sea in fragments rather than all at once and is therefore it is thought unlikely to carry the full force described but who knows. Its a bit like Los Angeles and it being built on a earthquake fault or the yellowstone park potential for a mega volcano, they have strong possibilities that they will happen one day and if it does it is more to do with nature and the places mankind chooses to live rather than the rantings of a self made prophet (IMO).

I am told that the Quakers in the US fall into differing kinds. Some with ministers and some without, some biblical bashing and some not. In the UK they are mostly universal in outlook and have no ministers as they believe we are all capable of ministry. Spong argues that each of the Gospels were written for a particular purpose and reflect the politics of the faith as it progressed. Mark as a Choreographed account to fit in with the Jewish Calender; Matthew to try to cement relationships with the Jews; Luke to try and cement relationships with the Gentiles (Rome in particular); and John as a final rebuff to the Jews by stating that Jesus was God and therefore is the true heritage of Abraham.

I go to a Quaker meeting. That is my church. I agree it is powerful in my experience.

Just found this from "Quaker Faith and Practice" :- "I know of no other way, in these deeper depths, of trusting in the name of the Lord, and staying upon God, than sinking into silence and nothingness before Him... So long as the enemy can keep us reasoning he can buffet us to and fro; but into the true solemn silence of the soul before God he cannot follow us. John Bellows, 1895" It describes my view better than I expressed.

amen

I agree. The other issue is we have no idea of the original documents and what alterations they may have been. I always find it a marvel that the early Marks Gospel forgot to mention the resurrection and that having so much significance to Paul and others. Sometimes in prayer God supplies all in spirit and we sense what is important (IMO) and it is not the digging into the minutia of textural meaning for me but the closeness of the relationship with God.

I am sorry for the laughing at the email comment. The one I received was accusatory rather than abusive towards me. I too like people sending me emails and private messages but I also like to keep the debates in the open. I have not seen the message you got sent. I am sorry it happened. Like you say God has had no trouble according to the bible in talking to mankind and did not need an intermediary to do that. I fear this is one of those things that got lost when the church stopped listening to the Jews.

Trinitarians argue that there are three identities that make up the Godhead. As for agreeing with them I can only say I do not think I do. I believe God is spirit and as such can dwell in whom he wishes. I essentially believe there is one God and one identity. Brother Michael Sky it seems you got an email too. I am glad I am not alone.

I would argue that they have been debating the idea of the trinity for some time. Remember the arguments with Arius and how nasty that got". Here is a quote that shows some of the dilemmas in the issue. Buster1 32 For example,whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him, butwhoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not inthis system of things nor in that to come (Matthew 12). So the holy spirit and the Son are not co-equal and aredifferent beings. Buster2 15 He said to them: You, though, who do you say I am? 16 In answer Simon Peter said: You are the Christ, theSon of the living God. 17 In response Jesus said to him: Happy you are, Simon,son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Fatherwho is in the heavens did (Matthew 16). So God revealed it not Jesus, so they are two differentspirits. Buster3 23 He said to them: You will indeed drink my cup, butthis sitting down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but itbelongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father (Matthew 20). So God and Jesus have separate possessions. Buster4 18 Jesus said to him: Why do you call me good? Nobody isgood, except one, God (Mark 10). So God is good and Jesus is not, so they are differentpeople with different characters and different levels of righteousness. Buster5 36 Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither theangels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father (Matthew 24). So God knows things that Jesus does not know. So theyhave no 'unity of Godhead'. Buster6 1 Do not let your hearts be troubled. Exercise faith inGod. Exercise faith also in me (John 14). Two different beings to put your faith in. Buster7 28 You heard that I said to you, I am going away and I amcoming [back] to you. If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my wayto the Father, because the Father is greater than I am (John 14). So the two of them are not co-equal then. Buster8 42 saying: Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me.Nevertheless, let not my will, but yours take place (Luke 22). So God and Jesus have two different wills. So there is no'unity of Godhead'. Buster9 41 Therefore they took the stone away. Now Jesus raisedhis eyes heavenward and said: Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 True, I knew that you always hear me; but on accountof the crowd standing around I spoke, in order that they might believe that yousent me forth (John 11). So God sent Jesus forth, and God himself remainedentirely in heaven whilst Jesus was on the earth. Buster10 9 You must pray, then, this way: Our Father in theheavens, let your name be sanctified (Matthew 6). Jesus himself was entirely on earth and God was entirelyin heaven when he said this! Buster11 46 About the 9th hour Jesus called out with a loud voice,saying: Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why have youforsaken me? (Matthew 27). One cannot easily forsake oneself can one! The Father wasGod of the son. The son was not God of the father. This was one of Sir IsaacNewton's anti trinity arguments. As a final argument, if it is true that Jesus and God arethe same person, then Jesus talked to himself in public, and prayed to himselfin private and so was in fact a schizophrenic. This is plainly a false insultboth to God and to his Son. Buster12 16 The one alone having immortality [aqanasian], dwellingin unapproachable light, whom no one of men has seen, nor is able to see (1Timothy 6). Literally aqanasian means 'without death'. So God has notdied and will never die. Whereas of course Jesus has died. Therefore Jesus isnot God - QED. Buster13 5 So too the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming ahigh priest, but [was glorified by him] who spoke with reference to him: Youare my son; I, today, I have become your father. 6 Just as he says also in another place: You are a priestforever according to the manner of Melchizedek. 7 In the days of his flesh [Christ] offered upsupplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him out ofdeath, with strong outcries and tears, and he was favorably heard for his godlyfear. 8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from thethings he suffered; 9 and after he had been made perfect he becameresponsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, 10 because he has been specifically called by God a highpriest according to the manner of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5) One cannot be a priest of oneself. Jesus must be adifferent person to God in order that he can be God's priest. Just asMelchizedek was a different person to God. God became Jesus' father again bysaving him out of death, by resurrecting him. Buster14 23 But each one in his own rank: Christ the firstfruits,afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence. 24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to hisGod and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authorityand power (1 Corinthians15). How do you hand over something to yourself?" Taken from:- http://www.biblecodeintro.com/intro39.html

mmm! I would love to you to respond to Fawzo's post without reading into it and letting it speak for itself:- Quote:- Dan I do not doubt God's ability to preserve His Word. He need not write it down as it is written in the heart and mind of every sentient being. What I do doubt is your abilty to objectively decide which one of the tens of thousands of alleged written words of God and their variants that exist on our planet are closest to the one written in the mind of Christ Consciousness. Lets face it the odds are at least 1 in 100,000 that you have selected correctly and the odd thing is everyone is making the same bet with their life. Why is your wager a better bet? Did God really mean there are storehouses in the sky for the wind. Is the firmament a hardened shell with windows for the rain to come through, Did God really mean that it is ok to kill adulterers, disobedient children, people who work the Sabbath. Is it ok to sell your daughter off or to beat a slave to death as long as he lives for two days because he is your property. Is it ok to kill 30 cities full of people because you and your family need a place to stay. Was the earth created in 6 days. Are bats birds and man only exist here for 6 thousand years. Are women turned to salt and men live inside fish under the sea for 3 days. Didn't rainbows exist before there was an alleged Great Global flood. Sounds like a lot of superstitious nonsense to a lot of people and yet you and a lot of other people are betting all your chips on it."

It is also a difficulty for me to argue that the context has or has not been changed because we have no idea of the original script, how much had been influenced by the Paulian school, or what was in the mind of the original writer (who ever he was). So I would say asking for a meaning would be asking for pure conjecture and highly influenced by who is reading it (IMO). For me we I would be tempted to go for the Spirit being in agreement with the baptism and blood of Jesus (i.e Jesus' life and death). Yet, I would not go as far as placing enthusiasm that this view is the correct view and only one, only that it seems to make sense to me. This I believe does change its meaning from Father, Son and Holy Ghost (IMO) and does not endorse the concept of trinity. I guess one of the differences here is I prefer to keep my options open rather than insisting that some sort of script is ultimately understood and is correct against all argument. I know you have argued over the Logos but there are been much debate about the concept of the trinity. As G.H.C Macgregor describes the issue in regard to John 1:1. "John does not say the logos was God; still less he does he imply merely that the logos possessed certain divine qualities. He means that the logos was partaker of the divine essence." Macgregor (1953) The Moffatt NT commentary, Hodder & Stoughton, London, page 4. In other words a quality of God which Jesus shared. It is the sense of sharing that has led to much speculation on how much Jesus shared of God and was of God and part of God, from which the trinity has sort to solve (as I understand it).

Actually it is thought that the references were added. "1 John 5 1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world.This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. 6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept human testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Footnotes: 1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)" From :- http://www.biblegate...-11&version=NIV

"In most pre-modern cultures, there were tworecognised ways of thinking, speaking and acquiring knowledge. The Greekscalled them "mythos" and logos.Both were essential and neither was considered superior to the other; they werenot in conflict but complementary. Each had its own sphere of competence and itwas considered unwise to mix the two. Logos(reason) was the pragmatic mode of thought that had enabled people to functioneffectively in the world. People have always needed logos to make an efficient weapon, organise their societies or planan expedition. Logos was forwardlooking, continually on the lookout for new ways of controlling the environment,improving old insights or inventing something fresh. Logos was essential to survival of our species. But it had itslimitations: it could not assuage human grief or find ultimate meaning inlife's struggles. For that, people turned to mythos or 'myth'. Armstrong (2010), The Case forGod (what religion really means), Vintage Books, London, pages 2-3. "Logos (pronounced /ˈloʊɡɒs/, /ˈlɒgɒs/ (UK), or /ˈloʊgoʊs/(US); Greek λόγος logos) is an important term in philosophy, psychology,rhetoric and religion. Originally a word meaning "word,""speech," "account," or "reason,"[1] it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), whoused the term for the principle of order and knowledge.[2] Ancient philosophers used the term in different ways however. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to "reasoned discourse"[3] in the field of rhetoric. The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe. After Judaism came under Hellenistic influence, Philo (ca. 20 BC–AD 40) adopted the term into Jewish philosophy.[4] The Gospel ofJohn identifies the Logos, through which all things are made, as divine(theos),[5] and further identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos. Although the term "Logos" is widely used in this Christian sense, in academic circles it often refers to the various ancient Greek uses, or to post-Christian uses within contemporary philosophy, Sufism,and the analytical psychology of Carl Jung." from:- http://en.wikipedia....org/wiki/Logos It seems to me it is only in some Christian groups that the term"Logos" is referred to as the divine but in Greek terms we have an understanding more like "the reason became flesh" rather than God became flesh or the Word became flesh. As the New testament was originally written in Greek I am more to Brother Sky's viewpoint that in the use of the term "Logos" its original meaning did not refer to Jesus being God or the term "God's word". It appears it had a differing meaning in the original Greek and Greek audiences to that being held by some churches today. This is compounded by the modern translations removing the word "Logos" and placing "Word" its place. Hence changing its meaning.

Absolutely. When I was referring to the attacks I was meaning that between the differing branches of the faith and not this forum. As you can note Spong is not even of this forum. I am also not trying to convert anyone as I believe only God does that. Your love is however, appreciated. Fawzo, amen.

I really do not like talking about these things with you Cool. I remember the distress last time. May I suggest we take a deep breath and start form a differ position. There are many tradition in Christianity (IMO). There are church based ones like the Roman Catholics. Bible based ones like the evangelicals, Spirit based ones like the Quakers and Unitarians, Gnostic and many other traditions. I come from a body who worship in silence, pray and await the spirit to speak to us or through someone else. Its witness to the world is in social works and caring for others and sharing that love that Jesus I believe taught (IMO). It has a belief that there is that of God in all. It is a far cry from the noisy and expressive evangelical meetings. I believe in a God bigger than my understanding and do not accept the view of the bible debaters nor the basis that I believe it is based on. You do and I recognise that. I personal do not agree with you and I believe you do not agree with me but that is not the issue for me. I see much debate going on by bible based Christianities that argue that other forms of Christianity do not exist, are corrupt or are false and the bible determines that it is the only authority. I see local Christian book shops littered with books that argue that they have the only truth and no one has a right to a differing view. Now we have one guy here (Spong) who reviews some those debates and like me finds them lacking and unsupportable. I know you disagree but it does not change it for me that you do. I treasure my belief in Jesus and what Jesus means to me. I recognise that could be different in areas to you. Fair enough. I do not say you are not Christian or that God does not speak to you but I do feel under attack by some who would argue that I and people like Spong do not have right call themselves Christian. Hence there is a continuing debate to challenge that which is being thrown towards us on the more liberal side of things. I could not stop that debate anymore than those who challenge me and others will. Sure it would be good if we could all get along and accept each other but that is not what is happening and its a two sided debate. I do not enjoy being at odds with you but we are from different traditions of the same faith (IMO) and there are likely to be differences. Now if I use what I believe is of the Spirit and you believe what you believe is the word of God (the bible) then we will come to differing opinions in my experience. I cannot change that. I believe faith is what comes from God and religion is just what we make of that experience. The bible for me is just writings of what others feel the experience meant to them and fair enough but that does not mean they are always right and and had the only understanding available or that is correct (IMO). As Fawzo suggested that Christianity is evolving as most faiths have. Fundamentalism and Liberalism are just some of those evolutions in my belief. I would love it if we could get along but I cannot see a time at present in which we will not debate our differing perspectives. Until that happens, how can I just put it aside, anymore than I expect you too? I just hope we are big enough to remember the critical thing of love for each other.

Spong on theism See:-

Spong on hell and being born again. See:- http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8f0_1247923398

I see this entry but have stayed away from what I see as an attack. We did not get along well last time. I think Spong's book is one of many and breaks new ground as well as reviews many views thought as established today. The book "Rescuing the bible form Fundamentalism" is about the use of the bible by many churches and it challenges that. Other books like "A Christianity for a new world", "Why Christianity must change or die" and "Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes" cover other themes too. Sure I have little doubt he may differ from your bible college but previously being Bishop of Newark New Jersey and a Minister in the Episcopalian Church, I am sure he went to bible college too. I have also read from a number of minsters of the Episcopalian church who recall topics like his being discussed. I am sure Spong has much to contribute to Christianity even if he is not the flavor of the month with some other churches. Tell me anyone who broke new ground who was popular with all? Also I believe a lot of churches have much invested in keeping things as they are, but forgive me if I do not agree with them. Spong:- " Spong was educated in Charlotte public schools. He was a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1952, and received his Master of Divinity degree in 1955 from the Episcopal Theological Seminary in Alexandria, Virginia. That seminary and Saint Paul's College have both conferred on him honorary Doctor of Divinity degrees. He wrote: "[i have] immerse[d] myself in contemporary Biblical scholarship at such places as Union Theological Seminary in New York City, Yale Divinity School, Harvard Divinity School and the storied universities in Edinburgh, Oxford and Cambridge."[1] He served as rector of St. Joseph's Church in Durham, North Carolina from 1955 to 1957; rector of Calvary Parish, Tarboro, North Carolina from 1957 to 1965; rector of St. John's Church in Lynchburg, Virginia from 1965 to 1969; and rector of St. Paul's Church in Richmond, Virginia from 1969 to 1976. He has moreover held visiting positions and given lectures at major American theological institutions, most prominently at Harvard Divinity School. He retired in 2000. Recipient of many awards, including 1999 Humanist of the Year,[2] Bishop Spong is a contributor to the Living the Questions DVD program and has been a guest on numerous national television broadcasts (including The Today Show, Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, Dateline, 60 Minutes, and Larry King Live). Bishop Spong's calendar has him lecturing around the world." from:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong#cite_note-2]

Wow! what a post. Thanks Hermano.

Thanks Hermano. I believe there is much wisdom in what you say. "As we submerge ourselves in the love of God, it is as we are always finding God for the first time".

We all change. I too used to tell people I worked for exactly what I thought of them when I was younger. I remember telling one employer that their knowledge was so out of date that they had cobwebs on it and I could not wait till they left so we could get on with the job properly. I think the only thing that saved my job that day was that I was the shop steward for the union and I think they thought it would cause them more trouble than it was worth to sack me. However, they looked furious. I am more respectful today and would try my utmost not to resort to such outbursts. I also avoid being a shop steward. Things are so much better if I remain on talking terms with people.

I am sorry your having a rough time friend. Life can be very hard sometimes. I have had a few experiences I would not want again recently but I am sure I will.I agree it is not easy friend. I guess faith is not believing when all goes well but persevering when things are not so. Maybe the tip is if you feel good in the morning, stay in bed and take the day off, but even that is not so easy sometimes. If you want to talk in private, I am here.

I personally agree. For me God is both female and male and neither and I like you do not think that ever changes. I guess the thesis emphasizes the female because it seems so sadly lacking in the perception of God both today and in the past (IMO). The Beloved One is a nice title. I like that.