Bishop Spong: "Hell is the Invention of the Church"
Evangelicals you are wrong, listen to Spong. ;-)
I've seen evangelicals change what they believe during my lifetime and I predict they will embrace Spong's views in 30-40 more years. Evangelicals are already embracing annihilationism, so why not? Watch him below:
People have faulted me for not seeking to debunk what they call "the best Christian view," and by this they mean liberalism. But why would I ever care to debunk Spong and/or a liberalism like this? He's merely wrong to affirm there's a God. But he's doing little harm by comparison to the authoritarian minded fundamentalists. Spong is a secularist like me. I can live with that. I take aim at harmful verisons of Christianity. If you're a liberal like Spong then why don't YOU join ME? Why not?
Hat Tip: Ken Pulliam
I've seen evangelicals change what they believe during my lifetime and I predict they will embrace Spong's views in 30-40 more years. Evangelicals are already embracing annihilationism, so why not? Watch him below:
People have faulted me for not seeking to debunk what they call "the best Christian view," and by this they mean liberalism. But why would I ever care to debunk Spong and/or a liberalism like this? He's merely wrong to affirm there's a God. But he's doing little harm by comparison to the authoritarian minded fundamentalists. Spong is a secularist like me. I can live with that. I take aim at harmful verisons of Christianity. If you're a liberal like Spong then why don't YOU join ME? Why not?
Hat Tip: Ken Pulliam
35 comments:
I have to say whatever debate I have seen on this blog from the other side has been awfully disappointing. From "Koran contradicts bible therefore it is wrong" Marcus to "Muslims baptize their children" Lvka, or best of them all, the demented DM.
It is getting really boring.
I liked the line "God is not a Christian".
But what if he is an atheist?
I am a christian and I agree with Spong. I find I have more in common with most atheists than many christians. I don't think the fight needs to be between believers and non-belivers but those who fail to recognise a secular pluralist society and want to attack science and force their religious views on others, versus those who value science and the benefits of a secular society, regardless of what they may believe or not believe. The only thing any of us can be certain of is that we are here now and at some point we will all die, everything else is up for grabs. If there is a heaven I think it will have more atheists and agnostics than religious people, as in my experience they tend to be more moral and human than a lot of the believers. Just my two and a bit cents worth.
I've seen evangelicals change what they believe during my life and I predict they will embrace Spong's views in 30-40 more years.
Or else more and more Americans will just lose interest in religion altogether, following the trend in most other developed democratic countries.
Like most fundamentalist de-converts, I went through a short period of being a liberal christian, before fully embracing agnosticism/non-theism. Once you get to the place where there is no heaven or hell, I fail to see a convincing reason to believe in a diety, except for some sort of vague soul comfort.
Sprong's God seems to be nothing more than another word for self-awareness. All that he seems to get from his belief in diety, I am able also to obtain from simple reflection about the human condition.
While I much prefer people to emulate his liberal religion than traditional forms, I still fail to see how this kind of belief in a nebulous deity is at all intellectually satisfying or even useful in daily living.
I wasn't talking about all Muslims, if that's what you understood.. it's a local phenomenon.
I find myself in agreement with so much of Spongs lectures and writings. As an evangelical in search of truth outside of an inerrant/inspired Bible I like him. The problem with him is there is nothing left to believe in once you've digested his theology. God is so subjective that you can't know God. Plus, he makes a great argument to just dump "God" all together. I can see where he would be a quick stepping stone to atheism/agnosticism from evangelical Christianity.
Joe, if you're in search of truth outside the "inerrant Bible", then you deflated the term evangelical and removed any substantive meaning from it.
I'm curious as to why you should find a universe or human existence without belief in a personal God unacceptable. If you find Sprong's view interesting, then I would have thought that you might be moving beyond this "my-best-friend" God concept.
And your statement "there's nothing to believe in once you've digested his theology" makes sense ONLY if you feel it necessary to believe in the evangelical personal God. Since I stepped outside of that evangelical bubble, I've discovered a whole new universe of ideas to take it's place. Just learning about the natural sciences without the constraints of evangelical blinders on - I feel a kid in Santa's workshop!
Speaking of Muslims, lvka, didn't you say this:
"And no, they didn't use to blow themselves up for Mohammed in Islamic history: that's a recent "fad" (no earlier than the 20th century, and not even of Islamic origin: similar trends appeared in Western Europe around that same time: so-called fanatic liberation movements [IRA, ETA, etc])."
Now I am interested in current affairs, but do you have any history of IRA and ETA having been involved in suicide attack? You know, otherwise, I'll have to think you made it up.
Just like the "Muslims don't think mohammad had any miracles" bit.
"People don't need to be born again; they need to grow up and take responsibility for themselves"
*applauds*
I didn't say they were involved in suicide attacks: just that Muslim terrorism appears at the same time as European terrorism, namely in the 20th century, (especially following the youth-revolts in the 1960s), where we saw the birth of what we have nowadays come to call terrorist movemets: ETA: 1959; IRA: 1969; RAF: 1970; etc. You can find more about each one of them on Wikipedia.
Wesley, what I really meant to say was that I am no longer an evangelical. Having come from an evangelical perspective I am now open to the truth where ever it may be found. I am extremely tempted to go the route of liberal Christianity, but I fear that I will just find it wanting, as well. I don't want to waste my time. However, I have an interest in the mystical and the spiritual, so I am considering it. I've been out of the Christian ministry (pastoring) for several years now, and haven't been going to church in that time, either. It has everything to do with irrationality of the faith and the incapability of the faithful to see the world around them outside the closed box of the Bible. I'm not there anymore. But, I also ask myself, "where does that leave me?" Something akin to Spong? Loftus? Ekhart Tolle? Right now I don't know and I'm not "trying" to land anywhere, just wanting to.
People don't need to be born again; they need to grow up
...as if the Bible doesn't speak about maturing in the faith (Hebrews 5:12-14), or reaching the spiritual age of the perfect man (Ephesians 4:12-15).
Annihilationism has been around a long time. (At least since the third century and probably before.) The view that hell is a state, not a literal lake of fire, also has a pedigree.
As for Spong, others before him have argued the same things with less ineptitude and more coherence and (naturally) originality. As someone who is well versed in NT and Patristic scholarship, I cannot take him seriously.
Nice Lvka...you just make things up as you go. From ETA and IRA showing trends like "blowing themselves up" just like Muslims, to Muslims never believing Mohammad having had a miracle or never dying for him, to Muslims following orthodox Christian rituals in ways Protestants or Catholics never would...
For the sake of winning the argument, anything goes.
Interesting to see a self professed Christian taking the "thou shalt bear no false witness" so lightly.
Everything that I've said is true. I don't understand where you feel that the problem lies..
Muslims did indeed not commit acts of terrorism (like suicide bombings) before the 20th century, when terrorism and/or liberation movements began all over the world, including Europe and Africa;
Islam stands out among major world religions (like Christianity, Hinduism, or Buddhism) for its lack of wonders;
and Muslims in a certain region are giving Monophysite priests a hard time insisting they baptize their babies in the same fount and in the same manner as Christian babies (since the priests use a different fount and don't recite the baptismal prayers).
If reality troubles you, I'm afraid I can't be of much assistance to you either...
Link 1
Link 2
Hahaha. Islam has no wonders. Of course not in my mind, but in the minds of Muslims it does. (What would you call "splitting the moon" again?)
Bringing up 20th century terrorism is irrelevant.
While ETA or FARC or IRA may be guilty of all sorts of atrocities their central thesis is not self-sacrifice for the promise of a reward in the afterlife, unlike Islamic terrorism. (The Japanese kamikaze died for the sake of emperor, because he was god, and Islamic terrorists die for Mohammad, because he is prophet). And it started with the prophet himself.
And linking to a Christian blog as your source. That's nice. That would be kind of like saying, god doesn't exist, because John Loftus says so.
Finally, you are of assistance regarding an important matter-without realizing it, of course. And that is increasing John's traffic. For which I should thank you by proxy.
(Same for you, Marcus, if you happen to be around).
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,you will understand why I dismiss yours."...Stephen F Roberts
The blog had referenced its sources: one of them was the site of an Egyptian newspaper, and the other one a scholarly book on syncretism, available at Amazon.
You also seem to have problems following an argument: all I said was that terrorism was not a part of traditional Islam. War was, but not terrorism. Nobody just killed himself for Islam: dieing on the battlefield was not unavoidable. Nor does one need any spiritual motivation for going to war to plunder and conquer.
Christians on the other hand were simply killed for Christ. There was no earthly reward for it.
And I was speaking about eye-witnesses, who died (without the possibility of gaining anything earthly in return for their un-avoidable self-sacrifice) for what they believed *THEY personally* saw, not simply by taking another man's word for it. -- you may believe another man without proof, but you can't lie to yourself.
Apart from the supposed splitting of the moon, which not even all faithful Muslims interpret to refer to a past wonder, but to a future one happening on Judgement Day, I'm unaware of any Muslim miracle, like healing of the sick, raising of the dead, prophecies, mind-reading, incorrupt relics, levitation, etc. [The other three major world religions have at least some of the above].
To be frank, I just don't see how Spong's version of Christianity is more rational than fundamentalism, and I just don't see in general how liberal Christianity is more rational. Sure it is less "dangerous", but from an intellectual point of view, any irrational point of view needs to be challenged. It might not be the focus of this blog, but it needs to be debunked or challenged elsewhere.
I'm afraid to say that fundamentalism appears more rigorous than Spong's ideas even if it doesn't correspond to reality. Spong's theology is based on what? So God is not a Christian? If you do believe that God exists, how the hell do you know if God is a Christian or not? How does he know there is an afterlife but no hell? All he does is pick and choose what he likes (like an afterlife or a God) and rejects unpopular ideas (like hell or exclusivism). It's not based on any rigorous thinking or evidence, he's just another preacher with a particular theology.
In a way, I respect more fundies.
But yeah, he's harmless.
Hi Joe Staub
You say, ..."The problem with him is there is nothing left to believe in once you've digested his theology." [Spong]
Papalinton
From the premise of 'certainty' of evangelical thinking, Joe, your assessment is solid, and I very much concur with Wesley's take in his response to you. And while I applaud Spong's position, it is nonetheless, a half-way house. He doesn't want to give up the life after death concept [and that may be a result of a strong Pascal's Wager bias that he is unable to shrug off] and he obviously wants to make some meaning in his own mind about a god, one that generates the least cognitive dissonance that can be mustered. I do not belittle his decision to do so, but his humanist qualities are shining through. The only thing that binds ALL of us together on this earth are commonality of shared secular and human characteristics, that transcends all belief systems.
And as Wesley points out, and which I too have cathartically experienced, every day I wake up I feel like a kid in a toyshop.
You are undoubtedly in state of flux. That is not a bad thing despite it being somewhat unsettling. Whatever happens, Joe, you will be the best judge of what is important to you. When the time comes simply let it happen, which ever way it goes, and have the courage to go with it. No one can predict the outcome. Good luck.
Cheers
Hi Brendan
I say exactly the same about those of faith in my circle of friends.
I too agree with Spong's take, but it is more the humanist qualities and characteristics of his position to which I am endeared. For my being an atheist, simply means I have a differing response to him on the notion of a deity and that when I pass from this world I rest comforted knowing that, as I had slept for billions of years before I was born, I will return to sleep the peaceful sleep of eternity.
There is no quarrel with your take.
Cheers
kiwi said,
"I'm afraid to say that fundamentalism appears more rigorous than Spong's ideas even if it doesn't correspond to reality."
That's because apologists have had 2000 years to beat the dents out of their story, and the work continues...
It's not like liberal Christianity is 2 week old. Time is not an issue here, give Spong more centuries and his preaching still won't be based on any evidence or rigorous thinking. It's still going to be: "this part I like so it's true, this part I don't like so it's made up".
Lvka, I don't know why you keep denying history. However, early Muslims did die for the prophet. At the time they didn't have the motive of getting war spoils.
Mohammad didn't get political power when he first declared himself prophet. In mecca, Muslims were a persecuted minority. Those who died there couldn't possibly hope for anything in return other than a reward in the afterlife.
And how about Islamic suicide bombers? Are they expecting to get the war spoils? Or are you going to bring up ETA and IRA again because they show "similar trends", which do not include suicide bombings.
Go look at al Qaeda propaganda. It is all about martyrdom. Did you miss the story about 72 virgins?
And incidentally, people putting their lives on the line for something they supposedly saw means absolutely nothing. People do it for reasons even stupider than that. Look at this study:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100812111059.htm?sms_ss=email
And why do you think early Muslims went to war against the big empires of their day, the Romans and the Persians? How heavy were the odds that a tribe of converts would win over the mightiest powers of their day? Well, in the opinion of Muslims, 100%, since Mohammad had prophecied it. Oh, there are plenty of prophecies in the Koran and in the sayings of the prophet.
Oh, and the story of "not all muslims thinking splitting of the moon was a miracle". Right. I am sure all Christians agree on 100% of the miracles, 100% of the time.
Incidentally, to treat "authentic relics" as distiguinshing point between Christians and Muslims is totally erroneous. It is more a question of denominations.
Shiite Islam has plenty of relics. Protestant Christianity has none.
But please, Lvka, keep helping John's traffic. I am sure he will appreciate it
This is the problem I had with Spong when I was an Associate Member of the late Robert Funk’s Jesus Seminar and one reason I wrote Bob Funk a personal e-mail shortly before his death as to why I was dropping my membership.
Bob always had his inner circle of liberal scholars who didn’t seem to want to kill Christianity completely, but just want to keep it alive while the cut off it’s creedal arms and legs.
However, contra to Spong, Bart Ehrman has pointed out that NOBODY talked about “Hell” more in the Gospels than Jesus! (But Spong would probably claim Jesus was an invention of the Church too.)
Apparently Spong must think the Church started with the English language since Hell is an English term used to theologically gloss over the major differences between the Hebrew and Greek terms.
Like Spong, one of the main problems with many of the older English translations of the Bible (such as with the King James Version) are the erroneous uses of the vague term "Hell" in the renderings of a general afterlife for the Hebrew word (Sheol) and the conflation of three New Testament Greek words (Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus).
Of the eleven times Gehanna (a place of fire) is used in the New Testament (and aside from its metaphorical use in the Epistle of James 3:6), all other 10 uses are confined to statements made by Jesus in only the Synoptic Gospels.
In contrast with Hades (which is used only four times by Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels and a total of seven times in the New Testament), Gehenna is directly linked in seven verses by Jesus with fire. (Matt. 5:22 continues the context of fire in 29 and 30 and the use of the Greek verb embalein conveys the action of casting one into fire.)
By contrast with Gehanna, Hades is equated with Sheol in the Hebrew Bible as the personification of death and the grave. Of its eleven uses in the N.T. (Other than in Luke 16 as an allegory on social justice), Hades is never equated with punishment and its final end comes in the Book of Revelation when both death and Hades are both cast into the Lake of Fire (Gehenna).
My problem with liberals like Bishop Spong is that their over kill of simplification has left people in a state of confusion and error. In that sense, he is theologically counter productive as an exterme liberal Christian.
Joe,
You said,
However, I have an interest in the mystical and the spiritual, so I am considering it. I've been out of the Christian ministry (pastoring) for several years now, and haven't been going to church in that time, either.
When you say you have an interest in the mystical and the spiritual, do you mean that you want to understand the phenomena or do you mean that your interest lies in the warm-fuzzy psychological experiences that are labeled spiritual or mystical? Is it some combination of these or do you have something else in mind? Do you want to know about the electrochemical neuronal foundations of the spiritual experience and how that relates to the spiritually and religiously numinous being triggered by injury, drugs, and electrical and magnetic fields? Are you curious about how various brain injuries often make mind-bending changes in how the spiritual is perceived? Would you want to investigate those persons who do not have such experiences or those persons who live in a constant state of religious delirium?
Concerning the mystical many people are looking for ignorance to enliven their day-to-day experience of life. I think most people appreciate that ignorance really does enhance many experiences. Not knowing the punchline to a joke is an example. "Have you heard this one?" or "If you've heard this, don't give it away" are reminders that the full enjoyment of some things requires us to remain in the dark. Spoiler alerts for books and movies warn us away from learning things that will lessen our enjoyment. This brand of desirable ignorance is so important that after the first couple Harry Potter books, the books were delivered to bookstores in lockboxes under armed guard. Many people want to be allowed to remain ignorant of how stage illusions are done so the personal experience of the magic isn't diminished by too much understanding.
But this kind of thing goes too far when people, so enamored with the joys of ignorance, construct or adopt a worldview which relies on ignorance to infuse all things with the mystical and magical. If, for instance, one remains ignorant of the fact that medical diagnosis is fraught with error, then the good fortune of an error going the way one likes makes for a miracle, especially when one chooses to cling to the ignorance of errors going the other way. Further, if one remains ignorant of the fact that the same errors in medical forecasting happen for all people, one can claim their miracle as proving the on-demand powers afforded their privileged sect.
But, once we understand that nearly all people have these experiences and that in different contexts people have devised different explanations for them, including distinct deities making contradictory claims, we find ourselves face to face with the common denominator in all this, the human mind -- not gods.
It would be interesting to hear what you mean by these things, Joe, and where your interest lies. I would be particularly keen to read about how much ignorance -- not meant pejoratively -- you would insist on clinging to in order to provide spirituality and mysticism a stable foothold in your life.
I don't know why you would think that sacrificing one's life for others is stupid.. (since that's what the article was about).
The Apostles died for what they actually saw with their own eyes, not for something that they simply took on faith.
I said uncorrupted relics, not simply relics. -- do Shiites have undecayed bodies of Muslim holy people in their possession, who avoided decomposition for the last several centuries or decades?
Regardless of what they expect or not, Islamic suiciders did not exist until the 20th century [yet Islam was founded in 622 AD]. (Al-Qaeda was founded in 1988, since you've mentioned it).
Russ,
I'm not interested in being ignorant of truth. I crave truth and/or reality. So, you are not representing what I am saying. I don't think everything has been explained by science. I don't accept your premise. I don't think we know enough to say all phenomena and experience can be explained naturally. Also, just because something occurs commonly in the experience of all humans does not mean that it has a scientific explanation, as in a common chemical structure of the brain explaining a certain behavior. It could mean that all humans share a common spiritual (metaphysical) nature. That, as Monism purports, we are all part of a universal spiritual principle. Or perhaps a Deistic view of God, that makes him essentially etherical. Or, perhaps a God that is both transcendent and immanent, so that we can actually experience him, but because we are so flawed in our understanding and expression of him it comes out very messy. I actually think that people like Sidhartha Gauttima, The writer of the Bagavad Gita, Jesus, Mohammad, and Spong (not to put Spong on the same historical level of importance! LOL) were essentially saying similar things about God and/or our spiritual nature. Take away the structures of their religion, or the religion formulated out of their teachings, and you are left with very similar ideas in the approaches of each of these men toward God. Show me or prove to me that I am wrong and I will accept that.
Edit 3g.nursing said...
You are quite right L. Islamic suicide bombings did not become fashionable until 20th century. And yet in order to wear a suicide vest you first need…explosives, right? So those were invented in what century again?
But this is not how suicide attacks started in Islam. Go read the story of Hassan Al Sabbah. He lead a gang of fanatic Muslims known as assassins (which is the root of the word). They carried out targeted attacks on their enemies-who where heavily protected. Almost none of the assassins survived the attacks. (And he was not the first).
Go learn a little history on Islam. When Mohammad pronounced himself prophet in Mecca he had no power. Muslims who were killed during the time until he migrated to Medina did it because they were convinced he was telling the truth. (And we can debate whether they were right or not, but that is what they thought, and that is what the Christians thought).
As for relics...well, I can assure you many books have been written in Shiite Islam attesting to the miracles done by their relics. However, you and I are not bound to believe them. Just like roman Catholics consider the holy fire fraudulent.
Joe,
You said,
So, you are not representing what I am saying.
If you reread what I wrote, you'll discover that I did not suggest or represent what you said at all. I was asking questions mostly. Sorry you got so defensive.
You say,
I'm not interested in being ignorant of truth. I crave truth and/or reality.
Maybe you do indeed crave ignorance. From what you've said here I suspect your interest in mysticism and spirituality is predicated on them having supernatural implications. You will not settle for or accept a truth that leaves you without some sort of otherworldliness. My guess: rather than accept the 100 percent supernatural-free nature of spirituality, you would gladly spend your life nosing about down blind alleys in your certainty that there is something more "out there."
You're right that not everything has been explained by science. Scientists know that, too. That's why there are still lots of scientists. But I challenge you to tell me any one among the outpouring of assertions made by the religious which you know to be true which could not also have had a human source.
You say,
I don't think we know enough to say all phenomena and experience can be explained naturally.
I'll give you that and add that science knows there to be problems known to be insolvable; they are proven to be insolvable.
However, despite whatever weaknesses science might have, it is our only means to acquire reliable knowledge. You can start the fog machines, the xenon flash tubes, and rearrange the mirrors as you go on about things you envision notions of the supernatural having done for man, but you're dreaming a Karen Armstrong sort of dream.
Are all notions of gods roughly equivalent, Joe? Really? If they're real, then, why have none of these gods ever explained that equivalency to men. Tell US Christians that Allah is just as good as Bible God and see if they agree. You can imagine all the parallels you like as an academic exercise, but that doesn't make it true or real. And, those parallels you draw are almost universally rejected by work-a-day religious practitioners. They don't want universality; they want exclusivity.
Your own argument here tells me that you know that you can't use reality to justify gods, so you off-road it into Philosophy Swamp. Gods don't act like they're real so let's use philosophy to shore up our pretending that they are. You say things like "It could mean" and "perhaps a Deistic view" and "perhaps God is both." You have nothing to say that you will even pretend you can rely on. Is all this really of use to you in your life?
Joe,
You said,
Take away the structures of their religion, or the religion formulated out of their teachings, and you are left with very similar ideas in the approaches of each of these men toward God.
This is sad, Joe. You've already made up your mind. What are you hoping to achieve when you say, "Right now I don't know and I'm not 'trying' to land anywhere, just wanting to," yet you act as though you've finalized your decision? Realize that if you stretch and abstract things far enough, as you've done with these religious icons, you can concoct all the sameness you want. But, you're making it up to suit your own needs.
You end by saying,
Show me or prove to me that I am wrong and I will accept that.
You've proven, Joe, that the natural world, even the natural world from which springs your spirituality, is not enough. You want spooky. Real doesn't cut it for you. Why do you bother saying you want truth when you are clearly not emotionally equipped to deal with it? Go back to church, Joe. Or since you say they're the same, go to a mosque or a synagogue or the Church of Scientology. They've got what you want, truth, lots and lots of versions of truth. If they're as similar as you claim you should feel right at home among any of them.
Joe, it's apparent that the last thing you want is truth. Religions don't have truth and they have no means to get it. That's why they assert it. That's also why what they assert as truth differs from the truth asserted at the church down the street. You've already concluded that the spirituality you seek is outside yourself. You've decided that it requires gods and other supernatural things. You've stopped looking for truth. You've almost certainly stopped caring about finding truth. Religion has duped you into believing that what you seek is outside yourself and outside the world you live in.
My last statement to you in my previous comment is still appropriate: I would be particularly keen to read about how much ignorance -- not meant pejoratively -- you would insist on clinging to in order to provide spirituality and mysticism a stable foothold in your life.
From what you've said here, I think you expect ignorance to give you magic, spooky, transcendent and numinous. And, why shouldn't you expect it? Ignorance does that and a whole lot more for plenty of people.
You should see him with regard to Paul and his Ephistles... Spong rocks! I was raised as a "Spongian" without even knowing! My parents never heard of this guy and still agree with about 90% of what he says. I always thought we were heretics...untill I discovered what is called liberal christianity.
At the moment I a starting my own blog on how I came to the believes I have today. It is no inspiring yet, but I hope it will be soon
Post a Comment