Can You Be An Atheist And A Christian?

[Biggles]

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]

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?

[j2k4]

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]

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&#39;t think the idea, in Spong&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s left?
The Dr. Phil of Galilee?

[Billy_Dean]

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&#39;t think the idea, in Spong&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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]

Originally posted by Biggles@16 October 2003 - 09:34
JPaul

I am afraid it was I.

Bad day at the office yesterday. I don&#39;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&#39;s argument&#39;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]

B)

Much better

Had a head full of cotton wool yesterday - nasty but thankfully temporary condition.





That would be an ecumenical matter?