I was going to add another new quote from Spong onto the thread entitled "Spong", but since there's a continuing discussion going on, I thought I might add this next quote as a separate thread so as to not hijack the first. This also allows me to move up the time-table somewhat. So here goes the second quote:

"Those who insist on biblical literalism thus become unwitting accomplices in bringing about the death of the Christianity they so deeply love. Ironic though it may seem, the success of fundamentalism in many ways guarantees the death of the very things these Christian folk affirm.

At the very least, those who want to be Christians in the twenty-first century must embrace this data. Geologists estimate today that the age of the earth is between four and five billion years. This means that the earth existed for more than 99 percent of its physical history to date before human life appeared. If human life was the purpose for the earth's creation, it certainly took a while to appear... It is thus hard to argue that human life is the sole, or even primary, purpose for which creation occurred" (Spong, "Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism", p. 31-32).



Shalom,
Vern

Christianity is the same in the beginning as in the first century, the twenty first and all centuries inbetween and beyond. Christianity is Christianity. It cannot change. All that changes are its external expressions most of which have devolved into Christendom.

Christianity concerns itself with the evolution of human "being." That is its purpose. Being doesn't move through time but time moves through "being" The century is irrelevant.

If one aspect of Christendom wants to argue with another, this is normal but shouldn't be confused with Christianity.

Literalism has its misconceptions as does secularism. The mistake a person will make is when they confuse Christianity with either.

Is Christianity not a construct of men, then? Because all constructs of men change.

Going further, is this same true of Islam, of Hinduism, of Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism, Paganism, B'hai, etc.? Are there any religions that this quality of never-changingness is not true?

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

EH



I would agree. Christianity initiated with a conscious source for the betterment of sleeping humanity. Christendom is an adaptation of sleeping humanity.


It can be true with some and not others. How can sleeping humanity recognize a conscious source? The only way to begin to discriminate is through awakening.

http://www.integralscience.org/unity.html

We argue these things at the exoteric level. Yet a tradition initiating with a conscious source begins at the transcendent level and devolves down into sleeping humanity into some form of secular adaptation. It is up to the individual beginning to awaken to recognize the BS and find the Conscious truths hidden within all the exoteric BS to discover the realistic path back to the source of meaning.

I would tend to say that Buddhism may well be the exception to the rule depending on what one emphasizes. The Buddha taught that all dharma must be rubbed against our own experiences and observations. HHDL also has stated that if the Buddhist scriptures conflict with science, go with science since the scriptures were written at a time when people knew less about many things. Therefore, Buddhism has a built in scientific approach that Einstein acknowledged was the most scientifically based of any religion he had studied.

On top of this, there's a basic Buddhist teaching that all, including "Buddhism", is ever-changing. It is not the same as it was 2500 years ago, nor is it the same from one locale to another.

Shalom,
Vern

In my opinion, what's more problematic than issues like evolution vs. creation, is taking religion to be the end-product or goal. I think religion is only of value in what it points to. Unless we realize the mind of Christ (or Buddha or Mohammed, etc) is what we're after, I doubt that it matters how "religious" we are or how much knowledge we possess. I agree with Nick that there's a big difference between the sleeping vs. wakened state.

Most of what you posted I agree with, but I would have to qualify the reference to "knowledge". "Knowledge" could be "awareness", which I believe is extremely important to use in our everyday lives, but I have doubts that you're implying that awareness isn't important. Correct?

Shalom,
Vern

Angeleyes


This raises the obvious question to me and observed by Jesus:


Without this quality of seeing and hearing, everything must become secularized. It doesn't seem to equate to knowledge as we know it since a person like Spong can be well studied but still not see and hear in this way.

I agree that religion should be a school that teaches how to attain the goal of higher being you refer to. But in secular society religion becomes the goal and people fight over details forgetting the purpose. The tradition then degrades into debates on the dominance of subjective humanitarian ideals.

It seems to be an impossible question to share since people differ so much that it is impossible to compare notes.

You're correct, and I probably should have used the word "intellectual knowledge" or something along those lines. And even that could be qualified, since reading and contemplation is quite helpful when it comes to spiritual things.

"Sleeping humanity?" I thought we were "fallen." And I'm afraid I don't know what either really means.
I don't consider myself (perhaps I flatter myself) more than usually thick. In fact, I think I have some modest ability with language. Yet I don't understand a word of that.

Your language is obfuscatory, or perhaps merely just incorrectly used. The words, as I read them, contain no precise or operational definitions, and therefore can mean anything or nothing. What your words, as used above, cannot do is share meaning between two minds.

We argue at "the exoteric level" because the first defintion of exoteric is "not confined to an inner circle of disciples or initiates." Neither you nor I is a disciple of the other, nor fellow iniatiates in anything I'm aware of, and so where else could we argue?

Could you please provide operational and precise definitions/explications of what you mean by the following:

• "Sleeping humanity"
• "A tradition initiating with a conscious source"
• "the transcendent level"
• "devolves down into sleeping humanity"
• "secular adaptation"
• "awaken"
• "Conscious truths"
• "exoteric BS"
• "realistic path back to the source of meaning." (With a focus on "back")

I shall have more to say on "esoteric" in another thread.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.