For Christians: Which of Spong's "Twelve points" do you agree with?

[Donerail]

No on 1-2, yes on 3-5, maybe on 6, not sure what he's saying with 7, possibly 8 (not quite sure what he's trying to say here - I believe in a round Earth?), yes on 9-10, possibly 11, yes on 12.

[minionofmidas]

Stop insulting beliefs you don't understand anything about, Red. And I'm talking about Pantheism, not Spong.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The real question here is why someone who thinks like that would remain a priest of any description. Bizarre.

[DC Al Fine]

The real question here is why someone who thinks like that would remain a priest of any description. Bizarre.

I think most of them see their role as more of a social worker/charitable worker. The few liberal Christians I know say their ministers spend quite a lot of time working in soup kitchens or volunteering for _______ political cause.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

11 and 12, basically, though I probably don't agree with all the implications Spong makes from those.  I also don't understand, if you believe in moral relativism, Darwin and naturalism, and jettison theism and the incarnation, what basis you have for saying that human beings bear God's image.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

The real question here is why someone who thinks like that would remain a priest of any description. Bizarre.

I think most of them see their role as more of a social worker/charitable worker. The few liberal Christians I know say their ministers spend quite a lot of time working in soup kitchens or volunteering for _______ political cause.

This is the case in my church, although I'm proud to say that our priests are much more orthodox than Spong, and our rector devoted his Easter sermon this morning in part to firmly criticizing 'higher criticism'- or 'quest for the historical Jesus'-based ideas about the Resurrection.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

I've shifted to being a little on-the-fence for number six.  While I find it challenging to believe in an all-loving God that demands blood sacrifices as payment for the world's sins, not believing in it is contrary to a very long-held teaching.  On the other hand, if God is Christ, then it could be argued that Crucifixion wasn't much of a sacrifice at all, because then technically it would be God, Himself dying on the cross for our sins, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Yes, yes, I get the Holy Trinity, but I'm still very conflicted on this one.

[RI]

12 only

[The Mikado]

I fail to see how anyone could accept #6 and call himself a Christian.  If you can't accept Paul's notion that humanity became tainted with original sin by Adam and that Christ's crucifixion atoned for said sin and allowed for universal salvation, you've rejected the fundamental intellectual premise (and point!) of Christianity.

Or, in other words, Christianity can survive the fall of the Virgin Birth.  Christianity cannot survive the fall of the Resurrection.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

On the other hand, if God is Christ, then it could be argued that Crucifixion wasn't much of a sacrifice at all, because then technically it would be God, Himself dying on the cross for our sins, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Yet my understanding is that that is in fact the traditionally-held doctrine. I don't think it's particularly nonsensical within the terms of the story.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

On the other hand, if God is Christ, then it could be argued that Crucifixion wasn't much of a sacrifice at all, because then technically it would be God, Himself dying on the cross for our sins, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Yet my understanding is that that is in fact the traditionally-held doctrine. I don't think it's particularly nonsensical within the terms of the story.

If you interpret the Crucifixion as God saying to the world, "Sacrifice no more lives, commit no more sins.  I am dying to demonstrate my love for you all," rather than Him saying, "Someone must suffer a slow and painful death in order for me to forgive anyone" (the latter being what I've probably heard more, often from very conservative Christians) then I think it makes sense.  I suppose it depends on how one defines the word "sacrifice," but I believe that only the former is consistent with the idea of an all-loving God.

[Blue3]

I fail to see how anyone could accept #6 and call himself a Christian.  If you can't accept Paul's notion that humanity became tainted with original sin by Adam and that Christ's crucifixion atoned for said sin and allowed for universal salvation, you've rejected the fundamental intellectual premise (and point!) of Christianity.

Or, in other words, Christianity can survive the fall of the Virgin Birth.  Christianity cannot survive the fall of the Resurrection.

Of course the Death and Resurrection are at the heart of Christianity.

But you can accept that without Adam and Original Sin.

Humans are flawed, always have been. Don't need the creationist Adam & Eve story to be literally true for that.

[RI]

I fail to see how anyone could accept #6 and call himself a Christian.  If you can't accept Paul's notion that humanity became tainted with original sin by Adam and that Christ's crucifixion atoned for said sin and allowed for universal salvation, you've rejected the fundamental intellectual premise (and point!) of Christianity.

Or, in other words, Christianity can survive the fall of the Virgin Birth.  Christianity cannot survive the fall of the Resurrection.

Of course the Death and Resurrection are at the heart of Christianity.

But you can accept that without Adam and Original Sin.

Humans are flawed, always have been. Don't need the creationist Adam & Eve story to be literally true for that.

The doctrine of Original Sin is not predicated on the historicity of the creation story.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

On the other hand, if God is Christ, then it could be argued that Crucifixion wasn't much of a sacrifice at all, because then technically it would be God, Himself dying on the cross for our sins, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Yet my understanding is that that is in fact the traditionally-held doctrine. I don't think it's particularly nonsensical within the terms of the story.

If you interpret the Crucifixion as God saying to the world, "Sacrifice no more lives, commit no more sins.  I am dying to demonstrate my love for you all," rather than Him saying, "Someone must suffer a slow and painful death in order for me to forgive anyone" (the latter being what I've probably heard more, often from very conservative Christians) then I think it makes sense.  I suppose it depends on how one defines the word "sacrifice," but I believe that only the former is consistent with the idea of an all-loving God.

Oh, I agree with you; but I do think that the sacrifice of God Himself, rather than just somebody whom God likes a whole lot, is important for the full weight of that demonstration to obtain.

I fail to see how anyone could accept #6 and call himself a Christian.  If you can't accept Paul's notion that humanity became tainted with original sin by Adam and that Christ's crucifixion atoned for said sin and allowed for universal salvation, you've rejected the fundamental intellectual premise (and point!) of Christianity.

Or, in other words, Christianity can survive the fall of the Virgin Birth.  Christianity cannot survive the fall of the Resurrection.

Of course the Death and Resurrection are at the heart of Christianity.

But you can accept that without Adam and Original Sin.

Humans are flawed, always have been. Don't need the creationist Adam & Eve story to be literally true for that.

But it does help for it to be figuratively true.

[Blue3]

If by "Original Sin," you mean everyone is flawed and imperfect... of course that's true.

But if you think descendants are morally responsible for the actions of their ancestors, or that all humans are completely depraved and no longer made in the image of God and fundamentally good at heart... that's wrong.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

The traditional Catholic understanding of Original Sin, (which they've started to move away from in recent years) is a pretty awful theology. Also part of why I turned from paedobaptism (true you can be a paedobaptist without adhering to it, but that's what paedobaptism is rooted in)

[RI]

The traditional Catholic understanding of Original Sin, (which they've started to move away from in recent years) is a pretty awful theology. Also part of why I turned from paedobaptism (true you can be a paedobaptist without adhering to it, but that's what paedobaptism is rooted in)

The Calvinist understanding of Original Sin is far worse. I think the Catholic understanding is rather benign, actually.

[DC Al Fine]

The traditional Catholic understanding of Original Sin, (which they've started to move away from in recent years) is a pretty awful theology. Also part of why I turned from paedobaptism (true you can be a paedobaptist without adhering to it, but that's what paedobaptism is rooted in)

The Calvinist understanding of Original Sin is far worse. I think the Catholic understanding is rather benign, actually.

I'm a Calvinist and I think this issue arises out of some problematic trends within modern Calvinism. Often pastors try to be more Calvinist than Calvin, which results in some of the harsher views you may be hearing.

Calvin: Total depravity means that everything humanity does is tainted by original sin, even the good stuff.

More Calvin than Calvin: Total depravity means that man is EVIL EVIL EVIL and we never do ANYTHING good.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

The traditional Catholic understanding of Original Sin, (which they've started to move away from in recent years) is a pretty awful theology. Also part of why I turned from paedobaptism (true you can be a paedobaptist without adhering to it, but that's what paedobaptism is rooted in)

The Calvinist understanding of Original Sin is far worse. I think the Catholic understanding is rather benign, actually.

I'm thinking of the idea that everyone is guilty of Original Sin, even babies, and if they die without being baptized they aren't guaranteed of heaven. It's not a common view today in those literal terms but the fact that remnants of it remain in theology is a big turnoff to me. I'm not fond of the idea that baptism literally forgives sins at all actually, but the idea that it's needed even for babies is pretty repulsive.

[TJ in Oregon]

Are you fine with the idea of adult baptism forgiving sins?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Are you fine with the idea of adult baptism forgiving sins?

No, but that's not a belief held by most credobaptists.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

If not washing away sins, what, exactly, do you think a baptism does?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

It's a symbolic act for the person to undertake, like memorialism in communion. It doesn't have any effect itself as an act. It's like a graduation ceremony, that's not what gives you your degree or diploma. It's absurd to say I was full of sin the morning of February 12, 2012 but sinless a couple hours later.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

It may be 'absurd', but it's obviously not as absurd as comparing a sacrament to a graduation ceremony. Memorialism is the pernicious vanguard of disenchantment.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

You're taking a rather high church Anglo-Catholic slanted perspective here as evidenced by even using the term "sacrament".