Can You Be An Atheist And A Christian?

[Busyman]

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

[Biggles]

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]

"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]

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.
Believe me...I get it

[J'Pol]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[j2k4]

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.