View Full Version : Can You Be An Atheist And A Christian?
Billy_Dean
10-12-2003, 05:58 PM
This is an article by Bishop John Shelby Spong. He questions whether one can dismiss the traditionally held view of God as a "supreme being" who "... desires our praises, elicits our confessions, reveals to us the divine will and who calls us into the spiritual life of communion with this Divine Being..." He has some interesting views, I have read his book "A New Christianity For a New World", and found it to be broad, informative and challenging. The man causes quite a stir, as Google will show you.
I won't offer an opinion on this, for no other reason than to annoy JP.
"Can One Be a Christian Without Being a Theist?" (http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/vox21096.html)
Other links.
The Voice. (http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/vox.html#spong)
Google ~~ "Bishop John Shelby Spong" (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Bishop+John+Shelby+Spong%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)
:)
Autumn Fox
10-12-2003, 06:43 PM
Just an answer to the title: Imposible.
Will read the thing you've given links to. Comments later.
J'Pol
10-12-2003, 06:50 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Doesn't annoy me mate, you just carry on. Your the one that got a warning for your behaviour, not me.
Everyone has seen you in your true light anyway, so I really don't care whether you express an opinion or not. Particularly in another of your ridiculous threads.
Busyman
10-12-2003, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by JPaul@12 October 2003 - 18:50
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Doesn't annoy me mate, you just carry on. Your the one that got a warning for your behaviour, not me.
Everyone has seen you in your true light anyway, so I really don't care whether you express an opinion or not. Particularly in another of your ridiculous threads.
:blink:
And no one can't be an atheist and a Christian
Billy_Dean
10-13-2003, 04:37 AM
Originally posted by JPaul@13 October 2003 - 03:50
Doesn't annoy me mate, you just carry on. Your the one that got a warning for your behaviour, not me.
Everyone has seen you in your true light anyway, so I really don't care whether you express an opinion or not. Particularly in another of your ridiculous threads.
Did you read the article JP? Of course not, not part of your agenda is it, especially when it comes to topics you already know the answer to.
Anyone who takes the time to understand what this guy has to say, would feel enlightened. Unless of course you believe in a simplistic, literal translation of the bible, and an interferring god.
As for the warning JP, I got the same PM you got, probably ruined your chances of the mod job you covert so much.
:)
denis123
10-13-2003, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@13 October 2003 - 04:37
As for the warning JP, I got the same PM you got, probably ruined your chances of the mod job you covert so much.
:)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What has this all got to do with the topic?
God is obviously dead.
protak
10-15-2003, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+13 October 2003 - 04:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 13 October 2003 - 04:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@13 October 2003 - 03:50
Doesn't annoy me mate, you just carry on. Your the one that got a warning for your behaviour, not me.
Everyone has seen you in your true light anyway, so I really don't care whether you express an opinion or not. Particularly in another of your ridiculous threads.
Did you read the article JP? Of course not, not part of your agenda is it, especially when it comes to topics you already know the answer to.
Anyone who takes the time to understand what this guy has to say, would feel enlightened. Unless of course you believe in a simplistic, literal translation of the bible, and an interferring god.
As for the warning JP, I got the same PM you got, probably ruined your chances of the mod job you covert so much.
:) [/b][/quote]
Billy, Billy, Billy.... :rolleyes: Must you alway's patronize the guest's??? :P
As a newly appointed moderator, I will be P.M. ing both of you chap's..
And Billy if you see Rikky boy, can ya say hi for me mate?? :o :beerchug:
protak
10-15-2003, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@12 October 2003 - 17:58
This is an article by Bishop John Shelby Spong. He questions whether one can dismiss the traditionally held view of God as a "supreme being" who "... desires our praises, elicits our confessions, reveals to us the divine will and who calls us into the spiritual life of communion with this Divine Being..." He has some interesting views, I have read his book "A New Christianity For a New World", and found it to be broad, informative and challenging. The man causes quite a stir, as Google will show you.
I won't offer an opinion on this, for no other reason than to annoy JP.
"Can One Be a Christian Without Being a Theist?" (http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/vox21096.html)
Other links.
The Voice. (http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/vox.html#spong)
Google ~~ "Bishop John Shelby Spong" (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Bishop+John+Shelby+Spong%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)
:)
The man causes quite a stir, as Google will show you.
Um ya Billy so did Bin Laden, Saddam, Salman Rushdi, Aayatola........
Bush and Blair have caused a we stir here and there also, Anyone with an educated or even un-educated opinion will probably cause a stir. It's the ones that believe it that concern me.
im an atheistic christian.
I attend church because it is a great open community... and i'm forced to :rolleyes:
but i'm an atheist.
Doesn't one have to believe in the concept
of an Supreme Being to have an opinion as
to weather one exist or not? :huh:
(does that make any sense?...i just got up) :unsure:
Originally posted by ZaZu@15 October 2003 - 11:53
Doesn't one have to believe in the concept
of an Supreme Being to have an opinion as
to weather one exist or not? :huh:
(does that make any sense?...i just got up) :unsure:
Isn't that like saying that if something doesn't exist you can't think about it.
Rather rules out most of mankind's inventions, doesn't it.
clocker
10-15-2003, 03:35 PM
Spong's primary question- "Can you be a Christian without being a theist?", seems nonsensical to me.
Analagous to asking "Can I be a great tennis player without ever picking up a racket and playing the game?"
Christianity IS theism.
Originally posted by clocker@15 October 2003 - 10:35
Spong's primary question- "Can you be a Christian without being a theist?", seems nonsensical to me.
Analagous to asking "Can I be a great tennis player without ever picking up a racket and playing the game?"
Christianity IS theism.
Just so-
Rather a fancy way of asking whether one can live a principled, moral life without acknowledging a god, which question can be asked and answered without going to all that other trouble and debate.
Principles and morals have to be grounded somehow, though......hmmmmm......
Isn't that like saying that if something doesn't exist you can't think about it.
My point is if you don't think something exists how can you be against it :huh:
Billy_Dean
10-15-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by clocker@16 October 2003 - 00:35
Spong's primary question- "Can you be a Christian without being a theist?", seems nonsensical to me.
Analagous to asking "Can I be a great tennis player without ever picking up a racket and playing the game?"
Christianity IS theism.
That's why he's asking the question. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian believes in the Christian version of God. Many people say they believe in the teachings of Jesus. but not in the "Supreme Being" god. So, Clocker, are you saying that anyone who doesn't believe in the biblical god cannot be a Christian?
[Spong]
Theism is the historic way men and women have been taught to think about God. Most people think theism is the only conceivable way to think about God. The primary image of God in the Bible is a theistic image.
By that I mean that God is conceived of as a Being, even the Supreme Being, external to this world, supernatural in power, and operating on this world in some fashion to call this world and those of us who inhabit it into the divine will or the divine presence. This theistic Being is inevitably portrayed in human terms as a person who has a will, who loves, who rewards and who punishes. One can find other images of God in the scriptures, but this is the predominant and the familiar one.
Theism is also the primary understanding of God revealed in the liturgies of the Christian churches, including the various Anglican Books of Common Prayer. There the God we meet is described as a Being who desires our praises, elicits our confessions, reveals to us the divine will and who calls us into the spiritual life of communion with this Divine Being.
So dominant is this theistic understanding of God that if one rejects theism, one is thought to be an a-theist. An atheist is defined as one who dismisses the theistic concept of God and, since theism exhausts most people's definition of God, an atheist by definition is one who rejects the concept that God might be real.
:)
J'Pol
10-15-2003, 05:46 PM
I know a great many humanists, who are moral and ethical people.
They do not necessarily follow the teachings of Christ per se. That is to say they do not live their lives and make their decisions based on the teachings of Christ. In many cases they have not studied the teachings of Christ.
However the life they chose to lead is similar to the life Christ said that we should lead. At least in how we relate to other people.
There are other people who may chose to live their lives based on how Christ lived his. On the principles he taught in relation to dealing with our fellow man.
Does this make either of them Christians ? No it does not. Christ taught of a God, of a heaven and of everlasting life. An atheist does not believe these things, so they are not Christian.
I do not believe it possible to be an Atheist and Christian because Atheists don't believe in God. Christians believe in God and that Jesus Christ is their Messiah.
Without insinuating myself betwixt you and Clocker, Billy, it would seem that someone who desired to live a life resembling that of a "Christian" would, of necessity, desire to refer to themselves as something other than "Christian" in order to avoid the linkage of terminology, would they not?
Is it your intent to question Spong's curious juxtaposition of the terms "atheism" and "Christian"?
Or do you contend that Spong is merely "stirring shit"? :huh:
Billy_Dean
10-15-2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@16 October 2003 - 02:48
Without insinuating myself betwixt you and Clocker, Billy, it would seem that someone who desired to live a life resembling that of a "Christian" would, of necessity, desire to refer to themselves as something other than "Christian" in order to avoid the linkage of terminology, would they not?
Is it your intent to question Spong's curious juxtaposition of the terms "atheism" and "Christian"?
Or do you contend that Spong is merely "stirring shit"? :huh:
Spong calls himself a Christian j2, I'm in no position to question whether he is entitled to or not. He's the bish, not me.
He goes on to say ...
If the theistic understanding of God exhausts the human experience of God, then the answer to the question of the EFM student from Vernon is clear. No, it is not possible to be a Christian without being a theist. But if, on the other hand, one can begin to envision God in some way other than in the theistic categories of the traditional religious past, then perhaps a doorway into a religious future can be created.
And this ...
The idea that somehow the very nature of the heavenly God required the death of Jesus as a ransom to be paid for our sins is ludicrous. A human parent who required the death of his or her child as a satisfaction for a relationship that had been broken would be either arrested or confined to a mental institution. Yet behavior we have come to abhor in human beings is still a major part of the language of worship in our churches when we speak of God. It is the language of our ancient theistic understanding of God. It is also language that is doomed first to irrelevance and later to revulsion. The real question then becomes, "Can Christianity be separated from ancient theistic concepts and still be a living faith?"
Remember, he is answering a question here. It seems to me that Jesus authorised no-one to use his name and teachings exclusively, no church, and no other organisation or individual. Who makes the rules? Who owns the copyright?
:)
Biggles
10-15-2003, 06:57 PM
I don't have any particular problem with the good Bish's thinking. The difficulty remains that it is nigh impossible for the finite to encapsulate the infinite in words (here I have some sympathy with Zen).
I think Lewis Carrol summed it up nicely when Alice asked the caterpiller how he managed to walk with so many legs - whereupon thinking about it he promptly fell over.
The views that Spong expresses are not new. Mystic Christian thinkers talked about such things almost immediately the Church was formed. Various councils were held and by 300AD a more rigid uniformity of belief was developed (helped further around 450AD by one or two faily authoritarian Bishops such as St Cyril - a particularly nasty individual). Free thinkers were discouraged not because what they were saying was wrong or contradictory but because it was confusing and disturbing to those who had difficulty with the concepts they were trying to expound.
The simple analogies used are effective because they communicate difficult ideas clearly. These always remained the most popular way of communicating them. Problems only really started when people started strapping other people to large sticks and setting fire to them for simply saying "that is all very well but it is actually a lot more interesting than that". It then became a little more difficult to have a really good theological discussion. :ph34r:
Bishop Spong's views, whilst unsettling for those whose bread and butter is the simple uncluttered approach, are not really a problem for the laity. He views are extremely academic and are the theological equivilant of Physics "are there 13 or 14 dimensions". Ultimately his defintion of theism may actually be the correct one but it is not going to set the heather on fire and is never going to be a populist religion.
Least that is what I think :blink:
Busyman
10-15-2003, 10:54 PM
sighhhhhh alot of mumbo jumbo this Spong spouts.
One very important Christian belief is that there is God.
Many things (not all)are boiled down to the most simplistic answer. Those same things do not take alot of thought nor debate.
Can You Be An Atheist And A Christian? NO <_<
Jeez :lol: :lol:
Biggles
10-15-2003, 11:23 PM
Busyman
Isn't the Bish trying to explore what Theism really means as opposed to arguing that atheism equates to belief? I think the reductionism of his discussion to a simple positive or negative rather misses the point.
For those that have a firm commitment to any particular creed this might be a not be a comfortable zone of debate but it is not an invalid one for a theologian - and most Bishops do dabble in this kind of thing as an intellectual pursuit. As I said above the laity tend to ignore this kind of stuff or only go for those elements which are easily translateable into populist belief systems. The rest keeps shelves in dark areas of libraries creaking.
clocker
10-16-2003, 12:12 AM
"Can Christianity be separated from ancient theistic concepts and still be a living faith?"
Sure..it just wouldn't be Christianity any longer.
Spongism or somesuch, maybe.
Why bother calling it Christianity, and assuming all the baggage ( both theological and emotional) that the name evokes, if, in effect, you are jettisoning Christ from the picture?
Busyman
10-16-2003, 12:14 AM
Don't get me wrong, some of what Spong says is good reading but....in relation to the topic question..it's a load of crap.
Christianity is a theist belief.
This is one of those dicussions like
If a tree falls in the woods and there's noone around to hear it, does it make a sound?
So then the big discussion ensues with alot of people going ....hmmm <_<
And just because it's "easily translateable" for me, doesn't mean I don't delve into dark areas of libraries. :lol:
Believe me...I get it
J'Pol
10-16-2003, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Biggles@16 October 2003 - 00:23
Busyman
Isn't the Bish trying to explore what Theism really means as opposed to arguing that atheism equates to belief? I think the reductionism of his discussion to a simple positive or negative rather misses the point.
For those that have a firm commitment to any particular creed this might be a not be a comfortable zone of debate but it is not an invalid one for a theologan - and most Bishops do dabble in this kind of thing as an intellectual pursuit. As I said above the laity tend to ignore this kind of stuff or only go for those elements which are easily translateable into populist belief systems. The rest keeps shelves in dark areas of libraries creaking.
Who wrote this, it is drivel.
Have you lost your mind.
Biggles
10-16-2003, 12:24 AM
Spongism? hmmm Spongism? <_<
It is just not going to catch on is it?
Although the Bishop is unlikely to be burned at the stake these days, mainstream Christianity is unlikely to be troubled too much by his views - as I said, these ideas have a long tradition and they haven't upset the main applecart yet.
clocker
10-16-2003, 12:30 AM
Well, admittedly "Spongism" isn't a mellifluous as other names, but with the proper marketing it might work.
Adherents could call themselves "Pings", for instance.
Biggles
10-16-2003, 12:40 AM
JPaul
I am wounded (well ok not very much :) )
I believe, perhaps wrongly, that there has been a long tradition of Bishops writing esoteric theology primarily for the edification of other thinkers and not the laity. In fact, as I recall, until the early modern period the laity were discouraged from reading period.
Is not examining what Theism really means not a valid area of debate for the clergy? I do appreciate there is a certain responsibilty not to stray from central dogma but I assume the Bishop is of the more liberal wing of the Episcopal Church and has certain latitudes not afforded others.
At the end of the day I just think his argument is a little more complex than "it is ok to be a Christian and an Atheist" and that the thread title is ...well, mis-leading.
J'Pol
10-16-2003, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by Biggles@16 October 2003 - 01:40
JPaul
I am wounded (well ok not very much :) )
I believe, perhaps wrongly, that there has been a long tradition of Bishops writing esoteric theology primarily for the edification of other thinkers and not the laity. In fact, as I recall, until the early modern period the laity were discouraged from reading period.
Is not examining what Theism really means not a valid area of debate for the clergy? I do appreciate there is a certain responsibilty not to stray from central dogma but I assume the Bishop is of the more liberal wing of the Episcopal Church and has certain latitudes not afforded others.
At the end of the day I just think his argument is a little more complex than "it is ok to be a Christian and an Atheist" and that the thread title is ...well, mis-leading.
period. ?
Bishops writing esoteric theology.
early modern period.
The above are only some examples of "non-Bigglesian writing".
Once again I ask the question. Who wrote that ?
Certainly not the Biggles I know. Is someone "spoofing" his name.
I have tried, in past threads, to press the notion that those who could bring some weight to such a discussion as is being attempted here are not likely to do so, due to the inherent "sinfulness" of our particular brand of P2P.
Were we to be somehow absolved, well, who's to say?
Maybe we'd be overrun with Jesuit scholars and theologians of every stripe, but I doubt it.
I'm sure, if they did find their way to us, they could be counted on to relieve us of our ignorance as re: matters religious, at which point we'd probably have had enough of them, and, finding them (at last) insufferable, invite them to leave our forum.
We really don't know enough to discuss this intelligently; Spong is, at the very least, an academician of some sort, trained in a discipline of theologic critique.
We make what we will of what he writes, but, in the end, find it a bit murky and off-putting to be anything more than useless to us.
My opinion. ;)
Biggles
10-16-2003, 08:34 AM
JPaul
I am afraid it was I.
Bad day at the office yesterday. I don't think I was at my most coherent.
I shall refrain from trendy comments like "period" in future. I thought I had put in the right place, but perhaps not.
Early modern period for we historians begins after the late medieval (which is around the end of the 15 century). By Shakespere we are well into early modern. Sorry for using in-house jargon. I should know better, it is a particularly mis-leading phrase and it is high time the discipline found something a little less opaque.
As for esoteric - :) I have, perhaps, watched too much Father Ted.
In short, I think my rather long winded and circuitous attempts were summed up in the last couple of sentences of my last post. Spong's argument's are more complex than the thread title suggests. I apologise for muddying the water rather than purifying it.
Billy_Dean
10-16-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by clocker@16 October 2003 - 09:12
Why bother calling it Christianity, and assuming all the baggage ( both theological and emotional) that the name evokes, if, in effect, you are jettisoning Christ from the picture?
I don't think the idea, in Spong's case, is to jettison Jesus, but to jettison the "baggage" that goes with it. His idea is to base this "new" understanding on the teachings of Jesus, in a post Darwinian world, to bring it up to date. As the title of his latest book suggests, "A New Christianity For a New World". To him it's a matter of relevence. The Christian church is losing members fast, has been for decades.
@ J2: Who are the WE you are referring to here?
[j2] We make what we will of what he writes, but, in the end, find it a bit murky and off-putting to be anything more than useless to us.
Looks like a tactic to shut down the discussion to me. :)
And ...
[j2] I have tried, in past threads, to press the notion that those who could bring some weight to such a discussion as is being attempted here are not likely to do so, due to the inherent "sinfulness" of our particular brand of P2P.
But, j2, aren't some of us forgiven this sin? Doesn't that then make some of us less guilty than others?
:)
I did couch it as "my opinion", Billy.
I have very basic ideas about religion.
I fear that to consider "Spongism" would give me an eternal headache, and will thus leave it to you people to discuss.
Pay close attention to what our Biggles says, though.
clocker
10-16-2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Billy_Dean+16 October 2003 - 08:43--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 16 October 2003 - 08:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@16 October 2003 - 09:12
Why bother calling it Christianity, and assuming all the baggage ( both theological and emotional) that the name evokes, if, in effect, you are jettisoning Christ from the picture?
I don't think the idea, in Spong's case, is to jettison Jesus, but to jettison the "baggage" that goes with it. His idea is to base this "new" understanding on the teachings of Jesus, in a post Darwinian world, to bring it up to date. As the title of his latest book suggests, "A New Christianity For a New World". To him it's a matter of relevence. The Christian church is losing members fast, has been for decades.
[/b][/quote]
Yes, but if you divorce the concept of Jesus from the "baggage", then what's left?
The Dr. Phil of Galilee?
Billy_Dean
10-16-2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by clocker+17 October 2003 - 00:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 17 October 2003 - 00:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@16 October 2003 - 08:43
<!--QuoteBegin-clocker@16 October 2003 - 09:12
Why bother calling it Christianity, and assuming all the baggage ( both theological and emotional) that the name evokes, if, in effect, you are jettisoning Christ from the picture?
I don't think the idea, in Spong's case, is to jettison Jesus, but to jettison the "baggage" that goes with it. His idea is to base this "new" understanding on the teachings of Jesus, in a post Darwinian world, to bring it up to date. As the title of his latest book suggests, "A New Christianity For a New World". To him it's a matter of relevence. The Christian church is losing members fast, has been for decades.
Yes, but if you divorce the concept of Jesus from the "baggage", then what's left?
The Dr. Phil of Galilee? [/b][/quote]
Perhaps part of the problem here is that Spong, in this instance, wrote a whole book to expound his views. Here we have a single article, and only one person who has read the book. I am no apologist for Spong, I have only a strong interest in theology, mostly historical theology. I am, as I said, an atheist, and NOT a christian. I find his views fascinating, in that they come from a bishop, a liberal bishop, granted, but one who is not afraid to voice his opinions, and stick to his principles when it would be easier to say nothing.
[j2]
I did couch it as "my opinion", Billy.
I must have missed that bit j2.
:)
J'Pol
10-16-2003, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Biggles@16 October 2003 - 09:34
JPaul
I am afraid it was I.
Bad day at the office yesterday. I don't think I was at my most coherent.
I shall refrain from trendy comments like "period" in future. I thought I had put in the right place, but perhaps not.
Early modern period for we historians begins after the late medieval (which is around the end of the 15 century). By Shakespere we are well into early modern. Sorry for using in-house jargon. I should know better, it is a particularly mis-leading phrase and it is high time the discipline found something a little less opaque.
As for esoteric - :) I have, perhaps, watched too much Father Ted.
In short, I think my rather long winded and circuitous attempts were summed up in the last couple of sentences of my last post. Spong's argument's are more complex than the thread title suggests. I apologise for muddying the water rather than purifying it.
Biggles
Welcome back, how are you doing old bean.
Biggles
10-16-2003, 07:26 PM
B)
Much better
Had a head full of cotton wool yesterday - nasty but thankfully temporary condition.
http://www.father-ted.co.uk/images/jack1.jpg
That would be an ecumenical matter?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.