Review of "Jesus for the Non-Religious" (John Shelby Spong)

Review of "Jesus fot rhe Non-Religious" (John Shelby Spong)

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Jesus
• for
• the
• non
• religious
• John
• Shelby
• Spong

[beaster29]

"but he never clarifies what he thinks god is."

Wouldn't that be the point? Rejecting the theistic understanding of god is to avoid the theists' tendency to attempt to define and explain god.

[lauragabriel]

@beaster29 I think we can agree that, in order to talk about something, one must define it. It is no use to talk about "God" without defining it, or at least giving a hint what exactly do you mean by such a concept. Does it make sense to talk about a "Schutrea" (whatever that may be), and yet refuse to define it? If you talk about something without even attempting to define it, your talk simply becomes meaningless.

[BurnsDillon]

You make some very good points. I admire Bishop Spong's works very much, but I also noticed ambiguity where a definition of God was concerned. Perhaps Spong, like me and many others, can't find big enough words or appropriate words to define God. I once read that any attempt to define God will always fall extremely short. Interesting thoughts.

[lauragabriel]

@BurnsDillon Thanks a lot. Well, you could try the via negative to talk about God, as Medieval philosophers and theologians did. Instead of saying "God is good", you could say "God is not bad", and so on. But, frankly, I think that if something is supposed to be too big to talk about it, it's better to simply ignore it.

[liminalD]

Great review man, top marks ;) I am curious though, why do you keep looking up? It looks like you're scared God will smite you from above XD

[lauragabriel]

@liminalD LOL! Yeah, may be I am scared that Yahvew, or Thor, or Allah, or whoever, will strike me with lightning. Actually, I am looking at a monitor reflecting my image. I just read and write books; I am quite an amateur making videos. But, now I've got a radio program going on, (unfortunely, it's in Spanish). Cheers!

[MrBiblicalscholar]

@lauragabriel all possess. All three aspects are love, and love is love, and all are equal.The Trinity is not a biological doctrine.

[MrBiblicalscholar]

@lauragabriel Also read Samaritans in Exodus. As for Mark, this story is about a mother trying to do what is right by her child, but other people are becoming a bad influence of the child. Look at the region, and why he does not want to be recognised? Refer also to the story of the Lepor. He does not reject Gentiles at all.

Going back to love, God was love. Hebrews called God Father. Jesus was love in the human form, called the son. The Holy Sprit is the Spirit of Love, that you and all...

[MrBiblicalscholar]

@lauragabriel at face value. This was never the intention of any ancient writers, including Hebrews. These are anceint people for whom the meaning to life was never based on a physical understanding as we do now, but purely a spiritual or meaningful understanding of the human charactor. As for matthew 10:5-6. Samaritans were Gentiles, non-Jews. They were not considered to be lost people as they were seen to do exactly as Jesus commanded, and Jesus rigidly points this out in his parable. ....

[MrBiblicalscholar]

@lauragabriel Let me help you here, because I have problems with his book too, but he knows what he is talking about. God to the Hebrew people was love, nothing more, nothing less. Love requires a giver and a receiver. The receiver needs love. The receiver and the giver represent the two sides of our humanity, as explained in the creation account prior to creation of man. He is also correct that there is no literal or more to the point, letteral, interpretation intended. Letteral means words...

[1emanres]

Regardless of whether Spongism or Theism is the case (I think both must be if God exists, and I have experienced real miracles from both directions), God's wishes for our behavior are found in the way the human body is built. It it is built to bathe its children, for instance, using spit and the tongue and bare fingers. This is not Sodomy nor child molestation. It's bathing. Hence pedophiles don't exist, nor to queer nor heteros. Lots of bullshit in religion and Spong hates bullshit. Love him.

[vonHindenburg]

"Avoid the theistic understanding of God." - i.e. avoid the understanding of God of those who believe in God - i.e. accept God as non-existent - QED

[beaster29]

@lauragabriel Not necessarily. When people start defining what a god is, don't they just end up creating that god to be what they want it to be, or what they think it should be? I think so anyways. Not that i have a problem with people defining what their god is and isn't, i just don't believe that, if there is a god, that it has sufficiently made itself known. Hence all the various definitions of what "god" is. People just create a god that works for them. I prefer to just leave it a mystery.