No! No! This is so wrong.

No physical resurrection, no Christianity. The entire Gospels are written from the perspective of the resurrection. If there is no resurrection, then that infinite and timeless work transpired inside the spirit and soul of someone because of the resurrection does not really exist. It's a sham! But anyone that experiences that resurrection event, knows the reality of it. They have thruout the centuries. I myself experienced it.

When you get laden down with old sins again, or lose track because of complacency of where the Spirit is leading, then you come up with such stuff as Spong does. I know in my life when I get lax in anyway whatsoever, I naturally revert back to my old sin nature, which, by the way, is never taken away in this life. One, however, is transformed to begin to understand sin nature and deal with it in ways he could never deal with it before.

Thank you for your comments. That's what we're hoping for here: spirited, respectful debate.

Respectful that is.

Nard, embroiderer and libRArY: The site seems to be getting into an early summer simmer... A simple difference, as I humbly perceive it, some have faith and others do not.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

fjp451 don't simplify this into oblivion. The facts are there in scripture, for instance, this issue of the resurrection. Paul plainly states that without the resurrection there is no basis for Christianity to exist. Now if you got guys like Spong denying the resurrection, then what are they doing pretending they are Christians when, in fact according to Paul, Christianity doesn't exist? Stuff like that, and more. I take scripture's take on the definition of faith: faith is the evidence of things not seen. Scary or not, it states that without the 'object' existing, you can't have faith in it. Or in other words, the abilty to believe it is proof it exists. Go figure that one over. There have been thinkers in the past that say everything you can think or imagine exists, but we are protected from this by the very nature of our existence. And when Christ says it's a narrow road to heaven, maybe He had all this in mind.

quote:

Originally posted by libRArY:
Paul plainly states that without the resurrection there is no basis for Christianity to exist.

But I'm a Christian, not a Paulist.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug Spaulding:

quote:

Originally posted by libRArY:
Paul plainly states that without the resurrection there is no basis for Christianity to exist.

But I'm a Christian, not a Paulist.

Paul was a Christian as well. If you don't like what Paul has to say, please, please do what many do: tear out those offending pages from your Bible. Seriously. There are mighty thin Bibles in the hands of some rather peculiar folks who like to think that they can edit the Bible, or, in Bradburian vernacular, throw Fahrenheit 451 heat on those passages and pages that cause them discomfort. To them, it is a pleasure to burn.

If you read the details in their entirety from the (above) site I've posted, it is quite succinct in supporting what you address. That was my point. Ultimately, faith comes from one's heart, soul, senses, knowledge, human experience, love, grace, spiritual awarenesses, and all other gifts - yet "ours" Only through God.

As a matter of fact, when Christ came to the boat "just as He was" and later calmed the seas, how His closest disciples wavered but then were awed by His presence and manner. How would this be revised today, we can only wonder!? Even here, however, Christ's lesson was a simple one - see, hear, touch, and still you must have faith!

My "simplifying" was not intended as a sending of anything into oblivion. (I will assume you were not including me into the Spong throng of "guys". Appreciated, if so.)

quote:

Originally posted by fjp451:
Nard, embroiderer and libRArY: The site seems to be getting into an early summer simmer... A simple difference, as I humbly perceive it, some have faith and others do not.

The point, as I see it, is there are people who believe in the physical resurrection of Christ and those who don't. Those who don't, are not Christians. That doesn't make them bad people, they just have absolutely no business identifying themselves as Christians if they don't accept or even seem to understand what the religion is about. Period!

Not that anyone might care, but just for the record:

I am not a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew, or member or follower of any recognized Religion, or codified system of beliefs. There is too much of this 'I am right, therefore you are wrong' going on in the world. All are of course right in their minds and therefore all of course are also wrong. When each of these Religions tell me to read THEIR scripture as the truth, I am of course put off, as no one has the answers to my satisfaction in one book, of any belief system.

I write again only to point out that assuming that you have arrived at the correct answers and therefore are in the select group of GOD's only followers will, of course lead to further chaos in the world of men. When will they ever learn, to quote a song I once heard. Humans must get over this club-joining mentality and get back to being one for all and all for one, supporting each of us by being kind to all of us, looking at what makes us Human and not de-humanizing us by separating people into groups of like and dislike. We have almost learned that to discriminate on the basis of our color, sex, or sexual orientation, age, and any other category that you can think of, is not the best way to get along in the world. Our Constitution was written to give each of us the right to find our own harmony and path in life, without denigrating those of others on different paths. The State cannot and must not prejudice the case for one against any other belief system; thus separation of church, synagogue, and mosque from the laws of the State is mandatory as prevention.

As July 4 approaches let us each think on this: this is a country of possibilities, of information, of the freedom to make choices about how we each want to pursue our own happiness. There is not a correct way to this end. There is only a way for each of us, equally valid and of equal weight, under the law.

As a non-religious person, I am fearful that our passion for what some have chosen to believe will take us to war, again and again, to settle the matter of who is correct, when, if we are honest about the situation, there is no correct answer, only opinion, practiced as faith. Instead of preaching, coercion, missionarism, and efforts to overtly convert another to one's faith system, why not let the magic speak for itself? If one such set of answers is truly superior to all others, will not the seekers beat a path to that door and break through on their own? Converting native "Heathens" to Christianity can now be seen as a usurpation of their rights to follow a path different from the Christian one. In our latter days of some wisdom, come we to understand that the Heathen may have been closer to the truth than we at first thought?

I offer this not in the spirit of preaching, but as a cautious note for your consideration. Might can make right, but that which seemed right, can be found at a latter day to have been wrong. I hope we as Humans can learn to get over ourselves and understand our place in this enormous universe and how we are but specs on a tiny blue ball of waterous wonder that we travel aboard through space-time as wanderers, and wonderers.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: patrask,

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:
Humans must get over this club-joining mentality and get back to being one for all and all for one, supporting each of us by being kind to all of us, looking at what makes us Human and not de-humanizing us by separating people into groups of like and dislike.

Phil has said an important thing. Spong has referred to this way of thinking as "tribal mentality", and I think it's the greatest barrier to a true reunion of humankind.

As long as we behave this way, we will continue to be this way.

I can't accept Patrask's philosphy. Why? It is totally humanistic and non-God. Patrask has simply reinterpreted an age old question which Rodney King years back said it best, "Can't we all get along?" Patrask looks thru the lens of self and what he can see in the here and now. He either refuses to look thru the lens that connects thru to the invisible passage of belief and into the wondrous metaphors that point to God, or has, and now simply rejects it all. People do that, you know. One person that comes to mind was the publisher of Hustler magazine. He stated he saw the very beginnings of the wonders of God as was preached to him by an evangelist, and then did all he could to thwart any further understanding of what he was experiencing. In scripture, that is considered the ultimate sin you can commit. Scary! It's called blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

But all in all, I reject most (there are some good humanistic points) of Patrask's philosophy of life as he has written in the previous post. It certainly isn't mine. But it is Patrask's. And I am sure he wouldn't want to push his philosophy on me or others.

quote:

Originally posted by embroiderer:
Patrask has simply reinterpreted an age old question which Rodney King years back said it best, "Can't we all get along?"

But wouldn't God want us to do that?

Does anyone recall the brief mention of "chronological snobbery" on this board awhile back?

quote:

Originally posted by Braling II:
Does anyone recall the brief mention of "chronological snobbery" on this board awhile back?

Earlier discussion of same?

But wouldn't God want us to do that? asks Doug Spaulding.

Well, what do you do with the statement of Jesus when he said to follow Him you may have to hate your mother and father. You remember the verse and the context I am sure. It meant that if you loved someone, even family, above the Christ, you were not worthy of heaven.

So, how does that fit in with ol' Rodnet?