Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
gone

deleted

deleted
Powwow

Mr. Spong sounds just like Oprah. All new age crap.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Mr. Spong sounds just like Oprah. All new age crap.

Your disagreement with any point of view is in itself, by definition, practically a sure and certain guarantee of its fundamental rightness. Spong is of course correct - should a god of any kind as envisioned by monotheism actually exist, then the local differences appertaining to the religious ideas of a small sector of one species of one kind of mammal on one planet are of course going to be ludicrously parochial.

Some people can see this. Not everyone, mind.
Powwow

A very new age response Shaker, congrats! lol
gone

deleted
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
A very new age response Shaker, congrats! lol

Well, not so much new age as "new, meaning written in 2013, and not two and half thousand years ago," sure.
Paul

Re: God is not one religion

Floo wrote:
“God is not a Christian, God is not a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist. All of those are human systems which human beings have created to try to help us walk into the mystery of God. I honor my tradition, I walk through my tradition, but I don't think my tradition defines God, I think it only points me to God.”
― John Shelby Spong


I saw this on another forum and thought it worth bringing over here. IF a deity exists it is likely to be universal, not tied to one belief system.


But then Spong is essentially an apostate.
Shaker

Re: God is not one religion

Paul wrote:
But then Spong is essentially an apostate.

One more thing in his favour, then - nice one Jack.

Aren't you an apostate too, Paul, as far as Roman Catholicism is concerned?

Apostasy falls into 3 categories:

Quote:
(1) When a baptized person totally rejects or abandons the Catholic faith while continuing to call himself a Christian. This results in an automatic penalty of excommunication.


*

Paul wrote:
Simply put, I was duped by the Great Lie of the modern Roman Church, and tradition shows that it is a Great Lie ... I'll be the first to admit that I was hasty in joining the Roman Catholic Church.


Shaker wrote:
you [have] been a Lutheran, a Catholic and now Orthodox in the space of a few years


Paul wrote:
I do believe the first two are deficient or riddled with error


Or is it heresy?

Quote:
Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith ... The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic.
northernstar

Thank God we're atheists, eh, Shaker?!
Shaker

northernstar wrote:
Thank God we're atheists, eh, Shaker?!

Paul

The RC's might very well think that of me. So what? It's none of my business.
Shaker

Paul wrote:
The RC's might very well think that of me. So what? It's none of my business.

So apostasy then is merely a matter of opinion that varies from one religion to another, and seems to stem from the religion which has been abandoned having a negative evaluation of the one doing the abandoning? Only some religions, mind: the monotheistic ones seem to be the worst offenders, along with the no less weird and freaky but newer cults such as Scientology. The Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans and whatnot don't seem to care if you stop being a Hindu, Buddhist or Wiccan, they do seem to be more, "OK, whatever dude, go your own way and go in peace." It's the ones who like control over every possible aspect of the believer's life, down to what they eat and what they wear and what kind of sex they're supposed to have, they're the ones who get in a snit about it. Understandable, really: no organisation that wants to control thought, word and deed to the nth degree is going to like being told to do one.

When you were still a member of that particular club it seemed to bother you quite a lot:

Quote:
For the past four decades the modernists, bordering on apostasy (that is if they're not already apostates, which I suspect is the case) have wreaked havoc in the Church of God ... for myself, traditional Catholicism is the only Catholicism ... If we give in to modernity then we lose the fight, which is tantamount to apostasy.
cyberman

Re: God is not one religion

Floo wrote:
. IF a deity exists it is likely to be universal, not tied to one belief system.


What data forms the basis of that assessment of likelihood?
Shaker

Re: God is not one religion

cyberman wrote:
Floo wrote:
. IF a deity exists it is likely to be universal, not tied to one belief system.


What data forms the basis of that assessment of likelihood?


Well, we're discussing gods here so the word data doesn't apply But I would say the statement can be defended by consideration that:

(a) according to monotheistic belief, by definition there is only one god;

but

(b) there are many varieties of monotheistic belief - mutual exclusivity and incompatibility (large or small) amongst them is pretty much par for the course.

On a firmer, this time evidential footing, anthropology (I'd also add psychology ...) makes it pretty clear - to me at least - that the myriad differences between varieties of monotheism are humanly created, outgrowths of specific peoples at specific historical periods and local customs and cultures. Hence my designation of parochiality earlier in the thread - I'm by no means necessarily using the word in a negative, dismissive sense. It's possible that, should a monotheistic deity exist, one currently existing religious schema is 'correct' insofar as it is that deity's preferred and favoured form of doxis and praxis, but unlikely given the ratio of one god to many monotheistic traditions, each one different to the last. There are more ways of being wrong than there are of being right, in other words. Given the existence of said deity, I find that scenario far less probable than Spong's (and Floo's) thesis which is that such a deity would be above and beyond all these local, culture-dependent, history-limited, mutable denominations.

On its own terms it makes perfect sense to me. I recall in the past starting a thread asking why more people who believe in a god don't just simply believe in a god and leave it at that, rather than attaching themselves to very specific, distinct and discrete religious traditions. Perhaps plenty of people already do, but of course if they're freelance believers (a la Karen Armstrong) outside of any religious tradition, they're going to fly under the radar and be pretty much invisible.
Powwow

Why do people believe, without any scientific evidence, that there are aliens living on other planets? They seem to feel it's ok to believe so using the probability angle, yet attack Christianity out of the other side of their big mouths.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Why do people believe, without any scientific evidence, that there are aliens living on other planets?

I've no idea - I don't know anyone who believes this. If you ask around you might find somebody who does. If so, ask them.

Quote:
They seem to feel it's ok to believe so using the probability angle, yet attack Christianity out of the other side of their big mouths.


For good, sound reasons, which have previously been explained. Shall I run through the salient points again, with smaller words?
Powwow

Really? What are you suggesting? That atheist that believe in aliens,  have found alien poop? That there are non doctored photos of President Eisenhower shaking hands with aliens? That scientists are secretly withholding the evidence they have of life on other planets? Too funny.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Really? What are you suggesting? That atheist that believe in aliens,  have found alien poop? That there are non doctored photos of President Eisenhower shaking hands with aliens? That scientists are secretly withholding the evidence they have of life on other planets? Too funny.

Try again for we English speakers.
Lexilogio

Interestingly - having been round a number of different churches - I'd disagree with the OP.

While there is always someone who introduces themselves in the church saying that theirs is "the one true church" - the actual beliefs and ordinances are remarkably similar. Its like - we all have the same fundamental codes, but with slightly different reasons / arguments for it. There is also usually one or two differences in the worship, perhaps one or two on principles - but usually minor.
Shaker

Lexilogio wrote:
Interestingly - having been round a number of different churches - I'd disagree with the OP.

While there is always someone who introduces themselves in the church saying that theirs is "the one true church" - the actual beliefs and ordinances are remarkably similar. Its like - we all have the same fundamental codes, but with slightly different reasons / arguments for it. There is also usually one or two differences in the worship, perhaps one or two on principles - but usually minor.

That doesn't seem to touch on Spong's point, much less refute it. You're speaking from what is bound to be a limited experience (out of all possible experiences) of different churches, possibly within the same denomination, possibly outside as well, but certainly within the same religion, whereas Spong's message is:

Quote:
God is not a Christian, God is not a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist. All of those are human systems which human beings have created to try to help us walk into the mystery of God. I honor my tradition, I walk through my tradition, but I don't think my tradition defines God, I think it only points me to God.
Lexilogio

Shaker wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Interestingly - having been round a number of different churches - I'd disagree with the OP.

While there is always someone who introduces themselves in the church saying that theirs is "the one true church" - the actual beliefs and ordinances are remarkably similar. Its like - we all have the same fundamental codes, but with slightly different reasons / arguments for it. There is also usually one or two differences in the worship, perhaps one or two on principles - but usually minor.

That doesn't seem to touch on Spong's point, much less refute it. You're speaking from what is bound to be a limited experience (out of all possible experiences) of different churches, possibly within the same denomination, possibly outside as well, but certainly within the same religion, whereas Spong's message is:

Quote:
God is not a Christian, God is not a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist. All of those are human systems which human beings have created to try to help us walk into the mystery of God. I honor my tradition, I walk through my tradition, but I don't think my tradition defines God, I think it only points me to God.


I'd probably agree with him. I think mankind is struggling to hear the word of God, and is acting on the fragments we have.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum