http://www.adherents.com/largecom/epis_12theses.html

Is theism dead? What would be a new way to speak of God?

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

When I read how he twists things with partial truths I'm reminded of Matthew 13:



This man hasn't really seen or heard anything and as usual, it will be the kids that suffer for it..

Well I have previously thought maybe Spong was an interesting clergyman with some ideas to consider but the first thesis kind of leaves me cold, that theism is dead. I don't define God in my religion anyway but considering we believe God's attributes are manifested I guess that is theism as maybe opposed to atheism.. So I can't buy the first thesis.

Long before these theses were drawn up by the good Bishop, Baha'is have accepted that the resurrection of Christ was a spiritual event rather than a literal physical one so I would accept or at least feel like the following is something I accept:

7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

I'm sympathetic to the last thesis:

12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

Although I would not use his wording about God's image in the way he does... Probably I would write it as follows:

All human beings have the capacity to reflect the attributes of God and can worship God.

Baha'is have long been supporting the belief that mankind is one.

So I have come full circle with this still accepting that Spong has some interesting ideas but cannot subscribe to them all.

- Art

__________________
"it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
- Johannes Kepler

What a complete non-rebuttal.

I think each of Spong's theses deserve, if nothing else, a thorough discussion. To simply refute the entire list is pretty arbitrary. Spong appears to be a deeply spiritual man (so far as I, an atheist, am able to tell), but he has developed a theology that is unlike the traditional Judeo-Christian and/or Muslim theologies that we all take so much for granted. And of course, any "new view" of accepted doctrine is -- pretty much by definition -- heresy, so I suppose it should be no surprise that the Episcopalian world is rising up against him.

But why can we not, here at IFF, have a go at analyzing what he's saying? We could begin with just the first thesis, and go on from there.
First, a definition:
So, the salient points seem to be:

• God as ultimate reference point
• God as Immanent (in the world)
• God as personal
• God as personal creator/sustainer

You can see what I'm getting at, and what (I imagine) Spong was getting at. It is the notion that we can know anything at all about the nature and/or purposes of god.

So, to begin, perhaps members could contribute just that -- what do you know about the nature and/or purposes of god?

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

Good questions L.K.

I don't see theism as being dead, but maybe Spong means the way most thiest identify God has come to a point of questioning. I think that a new way of seeing God has already arrived : call it Spiritual or Self realization or Oneness

I agree with everything Spong states, but would word it a little different.

__________________
May your awareness be perfection

I too agree with the intent of the Bishop's Theses. None are new or original to the Bishop. More and more people have been accepting a "heart centered" consciousness, as opposed to the old "mind centered" consciousness, since the '60's. It represents a shift in the way we think of our spirituality and relationships. The Bishop's: …is Theism dead…? was covered on this forum under a thread about: is Religion dead… a while ago.

Happy Thanksgiving to all,

__________________
Only Love Prevails,
Don

EH, I'm on board with you-- well said.

However, I do think Spong over plays his hand by stating opinions as if they were undeniable facts.

Shalom,
Vern

Good point Metis, I knew there was something that did not feel quiet right, but could not put my finger on it.

I agree E.H. I first made a post to every comment, but then delete it and bunched it together. I would find value at looking and debating every point individually.

__________________
May your awareness be perfection

All right, I'll go first. The question is, what can we know of the nature of purposes of god.

Now, this is much more difficult for me, since I don't believe in the existence of god in the first place. But wait! That might just be an excellent place to start -- what can we know for certain about the existence of god?

Well, we've all seen the arguments:

• Ontological, which shows only that god exists by definition, but definition of existence cannot be taken as proof, else anything that I might care to define, and define as existing, would immediately have to come into existence in actuality. Thus, the ontological proof proves nothing.
• Cosmological, which proves nothing more than the existence of necessary being, which being might just be the cosmos (or Nature, as Spinoza contends), itself, with neither subjectivity nor personality. Thus, the cosmological proof proves nothing.
• Teleological, which contends that there is too much order, beauty, inter-dependent complexity to the cosmos to have occured by chance. The argument from design. But on closer examination, the universe is remarkly random, there is horror as well as beauty, there is chaos and destruction as well as what appears to be design. No watch without a watchmaker? But what kind of watch includes earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, disease death and destruction as integral parts of the design? No, I don't think that proves anything either.

What is common in all of these proofs is that they all seem to prove oth too much and too little. Even if they were construed as managing to prove that "something" exists necessarily, absolutely, eternally, infinitely, etc., they still don't prove that this something is a god in the sense that most religions use the word.

So the existence of god is a matter of faith. Always was. Always will be. But faith is not knowledge. Knowledge requires no faith. Therefore, we cannot know if god exists.

If we cannot know that god exists, then it stands to reason that we cannot know any other attribute of god. Any attribute which may not exist is meaningless.

Therefore, nothing can be known whatever about god.

And if nothing whatever can be known about god, then how can we know, even if he exists, that he is god?

Therefore, all theological god-talk is mere fancy and conjecture, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

And therefore, finally (phew!!), Spong's first thesis is true: "Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found."

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